[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Sugathan vs State Of Kerala on 23 February, 2026

                                            2026:KER:16117
CRL.A NO. 478 OF 2018

                              1

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026/4TH PHALGUNA, 1947

                    CRL.A NO. 478 OF 2018

  CRIME NO.1219/2014 OF CHANGANASSERY POLICE STATION,

                          KOTTAYAM

      AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.03.2018 IN SC NO.336

   OF 2014 OF SPECIAL COURT UNDER POCSO ACT, KOTTAYAM

APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

         SUGATHAN
         AGED 52 YEARS
         S/O. THANKAPPAN, PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE,
         KAKKATTUKADAVU BHAGOM, PERUNNA WEST KARA,
         CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN 686 104


         BY ADVS.
         SHRI.M.V.THAMBAN
         SRI.ARUN BOSE
         SRI.B.BIPIN
         SRI.R.REJI
         SMT.THARA THAMBAN

RESPONDENT/STATE:

         STATE OF KERALA
         REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
         HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
         ERNAKULAM 682 031
         REPRESENTING THE ADDL SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
         CHANGANACHERRY POLICE STATION,
         KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN 686 104
                                           2026:KER:16117
CRL.A NO. 478 OF 2018

                           2

         BY SRI.RENJIT GEORGE, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
         BY ADV SMT.AMBIKA DEVI S, SPL.G.P.
         (ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN AND
         WELFARE OF W AND C)

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
23.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                       2026:KER:16117
CRL.A NO. 478 OF 2018

                                   3


                                                                     CR
                        JUDGMENT

Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2026

Judgment in S.C.No.336/2014 on the files of the

Special Court under the Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as

'POCSO Act' for short) (Additional Sessions Court-I),

Kottayam, is under challenge, at the instance of the sole

accused in the above case. The State of Kerala, represented

by the Public Prosecutor is the respondent.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the

appellant/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor in

detail. Perused the verdict under challenge and the records

placed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. In this case, the prosecution alleges

commission of offences punishable under Section 354B of

the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for 2026:KER:16117 CRL.A NO. 478 OF 2018

short) as well as Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act r/w

Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of

Children) Act, 2000. The prosecution case is that, on

25.05.2014, the daughter of CW1 was playing in the

courtyard of their house with her brother. At about 1 pm,

when the child went for collecting jack tree leaves, she was

taken by the accused in his house and subjected her to

sexual molestation. On this premise, the prosecution alleges

commission of the above offences by the accused.

4. On getting final report filed, the Special

Judge recorded evidence. PW1 to PW7 were examined and

Exts.P1 to P5 were marked on the side of the prosecution.

No evidence was adduced on the side of the defence.

5. On analysis of the evidence, the Special

Court found that the accused/appellant committed offences

punishable under Section 354B of IPC as well as under

Section 8 of the POCSO Act. Accordingly, he was convicted 2026:KER:16117 CRL.A NO. 478 OF 2018

and sentenced as under:

"In the result, the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and fine of Rs.25,000/- u/s.8 of the PoCSO Act. In default of payment of fine the accused shall undergo another term of R.I. for one year. Set off is allowed for the period of detention. The victim child is entitled for compensation under the Victim Compensation Act."

6. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused

argued that the evidence available would not show the

ingredients for the offences punishable under Section 354B of

IPC as well as under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and the

evidence of PW1 in this regard is insufficient. It is submitted

further that, the accused has been implicated in this crime without

any justification since PW1 had animosity towards him. Thus, the

learned counsel for the appellant/accused pressed for

interference in the verdict impugned to get it reversed.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor strongly

supported the verdict of the Special Court and submitted that the 2026:KER:16117 CRL.A NO. 478 OF 2018

evidence of PW1 alone is sufficient to prove the guilt of the

accused and commission of offences under Section 354B of IPC

as well as under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. He further argued

that even otherwise the offence under Section 18 of the POCSO

Act, an attempt to commit sexual assault as defined under

Section 7 of the POCSO Act, also has been made out. Then also,

the accused would deserve conviction and sentence for the said

offence as well as under Section 354B of IPC.

8. Adverting to the rival submissions, the points

arise for consideration are:

1. Whether the Special Court went wrong in finding that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 354B of the IPC?

2. Whether the Special Court went wrong in finding that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act?

3. Whether the order impugned would require any interference?

4. Order to be passed.

2026:KER:16117 CRL.A NO. 478 OF 2018

9. Point Nos.1 to 4

In this case, the Special Court specifically relied on

the evidence of PW1 to find out commission of offences

punishable under Section 354B of IPC as well as under

Section 8 of the POCSO Act by the appellant/accused. PW1

was the mother of the victim. According to her, the victim in

this case is her daughter and she was aged three years at the

time of occurrence. The occurrence was on 25.05.2014. On

25.05.2014, the victim, along with her elder brother, was

playing at the courtyard and she was watching the victim from

the kitchen. While so, she noticed that the victim was not

available in the courtyard and she asked her elder son about

the child. He said that the child had gone to collect jack tree

leaves. She found that the front door of the house of the

accused was locked. She also found that the footwear of the

child was lying near the back door and the wife of the accused

was not in the house. She soon entere d into the house. Then 2026:KER:16117 CRL.A NO. 478 OF 2018

she found that the accused made the victim to lay on the cot

and removed her panties upto her knees and the accused

was attempting to do sexual act. She also found that the

accused was standing by holding his penis. She soon

interfered and took away the child. Soon, the accused ran

away from the spot taking his shirt. She supported Ext.P1

statement given by her, which led to registration of FIR in this

crime.

10. Even though PW1 was cross-examined,

nothing was extracted to disbelieve the version of PW1. It is

true that, PW2, another witness to the prosecution, turned

hostile to the prosecution. However, PW5, the neighbour,

deposed in support of the version of PW1 as regards the

events after the occurrence.

11. Apart from that, when the prosecution

examined PW4 to prove the age of the victim, Ext.P3, the

birth certificate of the victim, issued by the Registrar of Births 2026:KER:16117 CRL.A NO. 478 OF 2018

& Deaths, Changanassery Municipality, showing her date of birth

as 29.10.2010, was tendered in evidence through PW4 and the

same clearly established that the child was three years at the

time of occurrence. The learned Special Judge found that the

birth certificate is the evidence to prove the age of the victim

under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection)

Act, 2015, which is made applicable under Section 2(2) of the

POCSO Act. The said provision is corresponding to Rule 12(3) of

the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules,

2007. Since Section 94 is procedural, it has retrospective effect,

whereby the prosecution has clearly proved that the victim was

three years old at the time of occurrence. This finding is not

disputed, rather, perfectly correct.

12. In this case, the victim, three years old child,

was not examined and it was observed by the special court

that three years old child could not able to communicate the

matters verbally in a proper manner and the said finding is 2026:KER:16117 CRL.A NO. 478 OF 2018

only to be justified. Ext.P4 is the mahazar narrating the place

of occurrence. PW3 examined in this case is Dr. Sasikumar.

He testified that on 16.06.2014, while he was Senior

Consultant at General Hospital, Changanassery, he had

examined the accused and issued Ext.P2 potency certificate

showing that the accused was a person capable of

performing sexual acts. Ext.P4 mahazar was proved through

PW6. PW6 admitted the signature and preparation of the

mahazar. PW7 is the Investigating Officer who had

conducted the investigation and it was through him Ext.P5

FIR got marked. He also identified Exts.P2 and P4.

13. In the instant case, the crucial question

arises for consideration is whether the offence under Section

8 of the POCSO Act, as defined under Section 7 of the

POCSO Act, is made out? Similarly, another question arises

for consideration is whether the offence under Section 354B

of IPC is made out? Section 7 of the POCSO Act provides as 2026:KER:16117 CRL.A NO. 478 OF 2018

under:

"7. Sexual assault.--Whoever, with sexual intent touches the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the child or makes the child touch the vagina, penis, anus or breast of such person or any other person, or does any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration is said to commit sexual assault."

14. Section 8 of the POCSO Act deals with the

punishment for committing the offence under Section 7 of the

POCSO Act and the same provides as under:

"8. Punishment for sexual assault.-- Whoever, commits sexual assault, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine."

15. While tracing the ingredients to find out the

offence under Section 7 of the POCSO Act, it has several

parts. The first part provides that whoever, with sexual intent, 2026:KER:16117 CRL.A NO. 478 OF 2018

touches the vagina, penis, anus, or breast of the child. The

second part is making the child touch the vagina, penis,

anus, or breast of such person or any other person. The third

part is doing any other act with sexual intent which involves

physical contact without penetration. In the instant case, the

evidence of PW1 is that when she entered into the house,

she found that the accused had placed the victim on a cot

after removing her panties upto knees and was attempting to

have sex with her. She also found that the accused was

standing by holding his penis for the sexual act. When doing

any act with sexual intent which involves physical contact

without penetration is an offence under Section 7, punishable

under Section 8 of the PoCSO Act, the overt acts spoken by

PW1 would definitely attract offence under Section 7 of the

POCSO Act. In such view of the matter, the ingredients

necessary to constitute an offence under Section 7,

punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, are made 2026:KER:16117 CRL.A NO. 478 OF 2018

out from the evidence of PW1.

16. Coming to the ingredients to attract the

offence under Section 354B of IPC, Section 354B of IPC

provides as under:

"354. Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty.-- Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will there by outrage her modesty, 1 shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine."

As per Section 354B of the IPC, abetting any act, i.e., assault

or use of criminal force against any woman with the intention

of disrobing or compelling her to be naked, shall be

punishable. The evidence of PW1 categorically establishes

the said ingredients, and therefore, the Special Court is right

in finding that the accused committed the offence under 2026:KER:16117 CRL.A NO. 478 OF 2018

Section 354B of the IPC.

17. In the instant case, as already pointed out,

when PW1 was cross-examined, nothing was extracted to

disbelieve her version in any manner and the cross-

examination is confined to certain irrelevant questions which

by itself are insufficient to make the evidence of PW1

unbelievable. In such view of the matter, the evidence of

PW1 is found to be wholly reliable. It is settled law that there

is no necessity to examine a large number of witnesses to

prove the occurrence, particularly when the offence alleged is

sexual molestation. If the solitary evidence of a victim or

someone witnessed the same, appears to be wholly reliable,

the same can be the sole basis for conviction. Applying the

said legal proposition, in the instant case, there is no scope

for interfering with the conviction recorded by the Special

court for the offence under Section 354B of IPC and Section

8 of the POCSO Act. Therefore, the conviction is confirmed.

2026:KER:16117 CRL.A NO. 478 OF 2018

18. Coming to the sentence, some leniency can

be given in the matter of sentence. It is relevant to note that

the minimum sentence provided for the offence punishable

under section 354B of IPC is three years. Similarly, the

minimum sentence for the offence punishable under Section

8 of the POCSO Act is also less than three years and it may

extend to five years. Taking into consideration of the above

aspects, I am inclined to modify the sentence.

19. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part.

Conviction imposed by the special court is confirmed. The

sentence is interfered and modified as under:

1. The appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of ₹25,000/-

(Rupees twenty five thousand only) for the offence punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. In default of payment of fine, the accused/appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.

2026:KER:16117 CRL.A NO. 478 OF 2018

In view of section 42 of POCSO Act, no separate sentence

is imposed for the offence punishable under section 354B of

IPC.

20. The substantive sentence and the default

sentence shall run separately. Set off is allowed for the

period of detention already undergone by the accused.

21. The order suspending sentence and

granting bail to the accused stands vacated, with direction to

the accused to appear before the special court forthwith to

undergo the modified sentence, failing which, the Special

Court is directed to execute the sentence, without fail.