CHEVAYI MOHANDAS vs STATE OF KERALA
- Court
- Kerala High Court
2026:KER:39131
Crl.Appeal No.1101/2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
TH
THURSDAY, THE 4 DAY OF JUNE 2026 / 14TH JYAISHTA, 1948
CRL.A NO. 1101 OF 2024
CRIME NO.44/2015 OF Kondotty Police Station, Malappuram
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2023 IN SC NO.193 OF 2016 OF
SPECIAL COURT UNDER POCSO ACT, MANJERI
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
CHEVAYI MOHANDAS,
AGED 41 YEARS,
S/O NEELAKANDAN, KAVUKANDIYIL VEEDU, KIZHISSERI,
KUZHIMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 673641.
BY ADV SRI.H.KIRAN
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031.
SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI VIPIN NARAYAN.A
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.05.2026,
THE COURT ON 04.06.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:39131
Crl.Appeal No.1101/2024 2
“C.R”
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
================================
Crl.Appeal No.1101 of 2024
================================
th
Dated this the 4 day of June, 2026
J U D G M E N T
The sole accused in S.C.No.193 of 2016 on the files of the Special
Court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
(`POCSO Act’ for short hereafter), Manjeri, has filed this appeal
challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against him in the above
case.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the
learned Special Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the judgment under
challenge and the records of the Special Court.
3. Here the prosecution alleges commission of offences
punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC’ for short
hereafter) as well as under Sections 5(j)(ii), 5(l), 5(o), 5(p) r/w 6 of
POCSO Act and under Section 23 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
2026:KER:39131
Crl.Appeal No.1101/2024 3
of Children) Act (`JJ Act’ for short), by the appellant. The case of the
prosecution is that the appellant/accused had subjected the victim to
aggravated sexual assault and made her pregnant, and in consequence
thereof she had given birth to a child at Eranad Hospital, Manjeri.
4. The learned Special Judge proceeded with trial of the matter on
completing pre-trial formalities. During trial, PW1 to PW23 were
examined and Exts.P1 to P24 were marked on the side of prosecution. No
defence evidence was adduced.
5. On evaluation of evidence and after hearing both sides,
the learned Special Judge found that the accused had committed the
offences punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC as well as under
Sections 5(j)(ii) r/w 6, 5(l) r/w 6, 5(o) r/w 6, 5(p) r/w 6 of POCSO Act as
well as under Section 23 of the JJ Act and accordingly convicted and
sentenced the accused as under:
“ 1. Accused is convicted and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees one lakh only) U/s 5(1) r/w 6 of Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act. In default of payment of fine, the accused is
sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 4 (four) months.
2. The accused is convicted and sentenced to undergo
2026:KER:39131
Crl.Appeal No.1101/2024 4
Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh only) U/s 5(j)(ii) r/w 6 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act. In default of payment of fine, the
accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 4 (four)
months.
3. The accused is convicted and sentenced to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh only) U/s 5(o) r/w 6 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act. In default of payment of fine, the
accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 4 (four)
months.
4. The accused is convicted and sentenced to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh only) U/s 5(p) r/w 6 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act. In default of payment of fine, the
accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 4 (four)
months.
5. The accused is convicted and sentenced to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 (six) months and to pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand only) U/s 23 of Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act. In default of payment of fine, the accused
is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 (one) month.“
6. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused argued that
in this case even though the prosecution adduced evidence in support of
the allegations, it failed to prove a vital point so as to attract the offence
punishable under Section 23 of the J.J Act and the age of the victim as a
2026:KER:39131
Crl.Appeal No.1101/2024 5
minor, aged below 18 years, not at all proved properly. It is submitted that
if at all sexual intercourse between the victim and the accused to be
discernible from the prosecution case, the deposition of PW2, the victim
herself, would reveal that it was a consensual sexual relationship and,
therefore, none of the other offences would be attracted against the
appellant/accused. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, in
the instant case the prosecution relied on Ext.P6 birth certificate
issued from the school to prove the age of the victim through PW6,
apart from that Ext.P1 tendered in evidence through PW1 to prove
the age of the victim. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant/accused further that the said documents cannot be relied upon as
the sole basis to prove the age of the victim. Therefore, the best evidence
was failed to be adduced to prove the age of the victim. In this regard the
learned counsel placed a decision of the Apex Court reported in [2006 (1)
SCC 283 :2006 (1) KLT SN 115 :AIR 2006 SC 508 :2006 (1) KLD 670 :
2006 CriLJ 303 : 2006 KHC 29], Vishnu v. State of Maharashtra , where
the Apex Court held that the prosecution must produce acceptable
documents to prove the age of the prosecutrix, and that once it is found
2026:KER:39131
Crl.Appeal No.1101/2024 6
that the victim is above 18 years of age, none of the offences under the
POCSO Act would be attracted. Thus, the learned counsel sought for
interference in the verdict of the trial court.
7. Whereas it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor
that in this case, PW2 the victim, PW1 the father and PW3 the mother
supported the prosecution case and the date of birth of the victim has been
proved as 05.09.1997 by examining PW6 as well as Ext.P6. In addition to
that the prosecution tendered, Ext.P1 also supported by the oral evidence
of PW1 to prove the date of birth of the victim as 05/09/1997, and
therefore the contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the
appellant/accused regarding the absence of proof of the victim’s age below
18 years is untenable. In all other respects, the prosecution has succeeded
in establishing the offences committed by the accused, and therefore the
appeal is liable to be dismissed.
8. In view of the rival submissions, the points arise for
consideration are:
(i) Whether the learned Special Judge is right in holding that
the appellant/accused committed the offence punishable under Section
2026:KER:39131
Crl.Appeal No.1101/2024 7
376(2)(n) of IPC?
(ii) Whether the learned Special Judge properly appreciated
the evidence while holding that the appellant/ accused committed the
offence punishable under Section 5(j)(ii) r/w 6 of POCSO Act?
(iii) Whether the learned Special Judge is right in holding that
the appellant/ accused committed the offence punishable under Section 5(l)
r/w 6 of POCSO Act?
(iv) Whether the learned Special Judge is right in holding that
the appellant/ accused committed the offence punishable under Section 5(o)
r/w 6 of POCSO Act?
(v) Whether the learned Special Judge is right in holding that
the appellant/ accused committed the offence punishable under Section 5(p)
r/w 6 of POCSO Act?
(vi) Whether the learned Special Judge is justified in finding
that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 23 of the
JJ Act?
(vii) Is it necessary to interfere with the impugned judgment
in any manner?
2026:KER:39131
Crl.Appeal No.1101/2024 8
(viii) The order to be passed?
Points (i) to (viii)
9. Here the crucial witness spoke about the occurrence is
none other than PW2, the victim herself. She had deposed supporting the
prosecution case. According to her, she was aged 24 years on the date of
her examination (20.10.2021) and she identified her original SSLC book
already marked as Ext.P1 showing her date of birth as 05.09.1997.
According to her, she used to participate in stage programs at the instance
of the accused and there were rehearsals at the institution of the accused
and at the house of one Sathyettan and also at her house. Further, she used
to attend the institution run by the accused to study dance and folk songs.
She identified the accused at the dock after the curtain placed in front of
the victim was lifted. PW2 testified further that the institution was located
about a five-minutes walkable distance from her house and was
functioning in a rented premises. She narrated the stature of the hall and
the nature of the building. She deposed that rehearsals would be conducted
from 5 p.m to 10 p.m on school days, and on holidays from 10 a.m. to 7
p.m. On 01.03.2014, she went to the institution of the accused at 5 p.m. for
2026:KER:39131
Crl.Appeal No.1101/2024 9
rehearsal and found the accused alone there. He instructed her to fold the
dress for the program, and while she was doing so, the accused came from
behind and forcibly laid her on the floor and subjected to sexual
intercourse. She was wearing leggings and a top at the time of the
occurrence and the accused removed all those items and she cried and
objected the same. But the accused threatened to kill her if she would
make noise. Thereafter the accused removed his dress and laid on her and
committed rape. When she decided to go to her house, the accused
directed her not to go there, instead to go for rehearsal. Again on
04.03.2014 when the victim reached the institution of the accused, she
found the accused along with another person. Soon thereafter the accused
had sent that person away for purchasing something and at 5.30 p.m the
accused again committed rape on her. According to her, on 04.10.2014,
she felt stomach pain and went to Al Abeen Hospital, Keezhissery, along
with her mother. She was examined by a doctor, and the doctor informed
her that she was pregnant. Thereafter, she was taken to Ernad Hospital,
Manjeri, on 08.10.2014. Subsequently, on 04.12.2014, she was admitted to
the same hospital for delivery, and she gave birth to a child on 05.12.2014.
2026:KER:39131
Crl.Appeal No.1101/2024 10
She also identified the dress worn by her at the relevant time. She
also deposed that she had narrated the occurrence to the doctor and
she had given a similar statement before the Magistrate. She further
stated that, while giving her statement before the Magistrate, the
month was mistakenly recorded as May instead of March. During
cross-examination of PW2 nothing was elicited to discredit the testimony
of PW2. It is in this context that the learned counsel for the
appellant/accused confined his challenge mainly on the issue relating to
the age of the victim.
10. Apart from the evidence of PW2, PW1 the father of the
accused also supported the prosecution case and it was through him
Ext.P1, SSLC book of the victim was tendered in evidence. During
chief examination, PW1 stated that he had produced Ext.P1 and
he identified Ext.P2 as the kaichit for getting back the birth
certificate for production before the court during evidence. PW3
is the mother of the victim and she also supported the prosecution
case.
11. As already pointed out, in this matter, as per Ext.P1, the copy of
2026:KER:39131
Crl.Appeal No.1101/2024 11
SSLC book, as well as Ext.P3 proved through PW6, who is none other
than the Principal, Higher Secondary School, Kuzhimannam, the date
of birth of the victim is 05.09.1997. During cross examination, PW6
categorically stated that Ext.P6 is an extract taken from the original school
admission register and he had denied the suggestion that he had no power
to issue Ext.P6 certificate, while affirming that he had the competence to
issue Ext.P6. Insofar as the question as to what all documents by which the
age of a minor victim under the POCSO Act is to be proved is well settled.
In the decision reported in [2026 KHC OnLine 331], Joseph @ Sabu v.
State of Keala , this Court considered the issue regarding the age
determination of the victim. In paragraph Nos.7 to 9 as well as 12, this
Court discussed the legal issue and held as under relying on various
decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court. The same are extracted
as under:
“ 7. The learned counsel for the appellant / accused placed
decision of the Apex Court in Yuvaprakash P v. State rep. by
inspector of police reported in (2023 KHC 6709) with reference to
paragraph Nos.16 and 19, where the Apex Court considered the
evidence required to prove the age of the victim in PoCSO Act cases
2026:KER:39131
Crl.Appeal No.1101/2024 12
and held as under:
"16. Speaking about provisions of the Juvenile
Justice Act, especially the various options in S.94(2) of the
JJ Act, this Court held in Sanjeev Kumar Gupta v. The
State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2019 (9) SCR 735) that:
"Clause (i) of S.94(2) places the date of birth
certificate from the school and the matriculation or
equivalent certificate from the concerned examination
board in the same category (namely (i) above). In the
absence thereof category (ii) provides for obtaining the
birth certificate of the corporation, municipal authority or
panchayat. It is only in the absence of (i) and (ii) that age
determination by means of medical analysis is provided.
S.94(2)(a)(i) indicates a significant change over the
provisions which were contained in R.12(3)(a) of the
Rules of 2007 made under the Act of 2000. Under R.12(3)
(a)(i) the matriculation or equivalent certificate was given
precedence and it was only in the event of the certificate
not being available that the date of birth certificate from
the school first attended, could be obtained. In S.94(2)(i)
both the date of birth certificate from the school as well
as the matriculation or equivalent certificate are placed
in the same category.
19. It is clear from the above narrative that
none of the documents produced during the trial
answered the description of "the date of birth certificate
from the school" or "the matriculation or equivalent
2026:KER:39131
Crl.Appeal No.1101/2024 13
certificate" from the concerned examination board or
certificate by a corporation, municipal authority or a
Panchayat. In these circumstances, it was incumbent for
the prosecution to prove through acceptable medical tests
/ examination that the victim's age was below 18 years as
per S.94(2) (iii) of the JJ Act. PW - 9, Dr. Thenmozhi,
Chief Civil Doctor and Radiologist at the General
Hospital at Vellore, produced the X - ray reports and
deposed that in terms of the examination of M, a
certificate was issued stating "that the age of the said girl
would be more than 18 years and less than 20 years". In
the cross – examination, she admitted that M's age could
be taken as 19 years. However, the High Court rejected
this evidence, saying that "when the precise date of birth
is available from out of the school records, the
approximate age estimated by the medical expert cannot
be the determining factor". This finding is, in this Court's
considered view, incorrect and erroneous. As held earlier,
the documents produced, i.e., a transfer certificate and
extracts of the admission register, are not what S.94(2)(i)
mandates; nor are they in accord with S.94(2)(ii) because
DW - 1 clearly deposed that there were no records
relating to the birth of the victim, M. In these
circumstances, the only piece of evidence, accorded with
S.94 of the JJ Act was the medical ossification test, based
on several X - Rays of the victim, and on the basis of
which PW - 9 made her statement. She explained the
2026:KER:39131
Crl.Appeal No.1101/2024 14
details regarding examination of the victim's bones, stage
of their development and opined that she was between 18-
20 years; in cross - examination she said that the age
might be 19 years. Given all these circumstances, this
Court is of the opinion that the result of the ossification or
bone test was the most authentic evidence, corroborated
by the examining doctor, PW - 9."
8. Apart from that, the learned counsel for the appellant /
accused relied on the decision in Deny Bora v. State of Assam
reported in (2014 KHC 4542) with specific reference to paragraph
12, where the Apex Court held as under:
"12 .............. It is well settled in law that conviction
can be based on the testimony of a singular witness. It has
been held in Sunil Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
(2003) 11 SCC 367 that as a general rule the court can and
may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is
wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a
person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the
logic of S.134 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But, if there are
doubts about the testimony the courts will insist on
corroboration. The same principle has been reiterated in
Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 14 SCC 150 by
stating that it is open to a competent court to fully and
completely rely on a solitary witness and record conviction, if
the quality of the witness makes the testimony acceptable."
9. Whereas, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant / accused
2026:KER:39131
Crl.Appeal No.1101/2024 15
and submitted that even though the mode of proof of the age of the
victim in PoCSO offences to be established following the ratio of the
decision of the Apex Court in Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana
reported in ((2013) 7 SCC 263), in a subsequent decision in Biju v.
State of Kerala reported in (2024 (2) KHC 297), a Division Bench
of this Court held that the unchallenged oral testimony of the victim
and her mother would be sufficient proof to prove the age of the
victim. The observation of the Division Bench reads as under:
"14. As regards the argument of the learned
counsel for the appellant that the conviction of the
appellant cannot be sustained since the Prosecution failed
to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was
below 18 years of age at the time of the incident, we are
afraid we cannot accept the same. While the oral
testimony of the victim PW1 is of sterling quality and
speaks to the commission of the offence, the fact that the
victim was only 16 years old at the time of the commission
of the offence is proved through her own testimony and
the testimony of her mother PW2. The contention of the
learned counsel for the appellant that Ext.P8 certificate,
proved through PW13 Sainaba Beebi, and showing the
date of birth of the victim as 28.05.2001, cannot be relied
upon since it is not a document mentioned under the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act for
proving the age of a juvenile, is also one that we find
ourselves unable to accept. Firstly, there is nothing under
the POCSO Act that indicates that the unchallenged oral
2026:KER:39131
Crl.Appeal No.1101/2024 16
testimony of the mother of the victim cannot be taken as
proof of the date of birth of the victim. Secondly, we are of
the view that the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act that deal with the
documents that can be relied upon to prove the age of a
juvenile for the purposes of that Act do not, and indeed
cannot, preclude a court considering a question
regarding the age of a victim under the POCSO Act from
placing reliance on other evidence admissible as per the
Indian Evidence Act. We are of the view that the objects
of both legislation being different, with the former being
concerned with issues regarding the competence of a
juvenile in conflict with the law to stand trial before a
court and the latter being concerned with issues
regarding the physical and mental effects on a child, of an
offence committed against her, the manner of establishing
the age of a child for the latter legislation can be in any
one of the ways permitted under the Indian Evidence Act.
In the instant case, we find the testimony of PW2 to be the
most reliable evidence as regards the age of the victim for
the purposes of S.5 of the POCSO Act, and consequently
for the purpose of attracting the presumption under S.29
thereof to the appellant. The decisions in Justin @
Renjith & Anr. v. UOI & Ors . - (2020 (6) KHC 546);
Shaju @ Shaju v. State of Kerala & Anr. - (2022 (5)
KHC 663) and Yuvaprakash P v. State - (2023 KHC
OnLine 6709 (SC)) relied upon by the learned counsel for
2026:KER:39131
Crl.Appeal No.1101/2024 17
the appellant, are thus clearly distinguishable on facts."
12. Point Nos.(i) and (ii)
In paragraph No.23 of Jarnail Singh's case (supra),
the Apex Court held that even though R.12 is strictly applicable
only to determine the age of a child in conflict with law, we are
of the view that the aforesaid statutory provision should be the
basis for determining age, even of a child who is a victim of
crime. For, in our view, there is hardly any difference insofar as
the issue of minority is concerned, between a child in conflict
with law, and a child who is a victim of crime. Therefore, in our
considered opinion, it would be just and appropriate to apply
R.12 of the 2007 Rules, to determine the age of the prosecutrix
VW, PW 6. The manner of determining age conclusively has
been expressed in sub-rule (3) of R.12 extracted above. Under
the aforesaid provision, the age of a child is ascertained by
adopting the first available basis out of a number of options
postulated in R.12(3). If, in the scheme of options under R.12(3),
an option is expressed in a preceding clause, it has overriding
effect over an option expressed in a subsequent clause. The
highest rated option available would conclusively determine the
age of a minor. In the scheme of R.12(3), matriculation (or
equivalent) certificate of the child concerned is the highest rated
option. In case, the said certificate is available, no other
evidence can be relied upon. Only in the absence of the said
certificate, R.12(3) envisages consideration of the date of birth
entered in the school first attended by the child. In case such an
entry of date of birth is available, the date of birth depicted
2026:KER:39131
Crl.Appeal No.1101/2024 18
therein is liable to be treated as final and conclusive, and no
other material is to be relied upon. Only in the absence of such
entry, R.12(3) postulates reliance on a birth certificate issued by
a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat. Yet
again, if such a certificate is available, then no other material
whatsoever is to be taken into consideration for determining the
age of the child concerned, as the said certificate would
conclusively determine the age of the child. It is only in the
absence of any of the aforesaid, that R.12(3) postulates the
determination of age of the child concerned, on the basis of
medical opinion.”
In view of the legal position, Ext.P1, a certificate equivalent to
matriculation, is a highest rated option to prove the age of the victim and in
such view of the matter, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the
appellant to unsustain the verdict on the ground that the age of the victim
failed to be proved by the prosecution found to be absolutely untenable.
12. Apart from the evidence, prosecution examined the other
witnesses. That PW8 was the WCPO, who recorded the statement of the
victim and produced the victim before the doctor for medical examination.
PW9 was another WCPO attached to Kondotty police station who
produced the victim before the Medical Officer, Forensic Department in
Medical College Hospital for taking DNA samples. PW10 examined in
2026:KER:39131
Crl.Appeal No.1101/2024 19
this case was the senior CPO who witnessed the production of the letter
before the Circle Inspector of Police by PW9. Ext.P9 was marked through
him. Ext. P9 is the seizure mahazer for taking a letter into custody. PW11
was the Secretary, Kuzhimanna grama panchayat. Ext.P10 ownership
certificate was marked through him. PW12 was the Village officer
attached to Kuzhimanna village. Ext.P11 was marked through him.
Ext.P11 was the eye sketch. PW13 was the owner of the building No.
I/108. PW13 admitted that during the year 2013 to 2015 he had rented out
the building to the accused for conducting dance and song classes.
13. PW14 was the Asst. Professor in General Surgery attached to
Government Medical College Hospital, Manjeri. He testified that at about
12.05 pm on 10.01.2015 he had conducted potency test of the accused.
Ext.P12, the potency certificate was tendered in evidence through him.
PW15 was the medical officer attached to Government Medical College
Hospital, Manjeri. His evidence is that at about 8.30 pm on 09/01/2015, he
had examined the victim in this case.
14. PW16 examined in this case was the Asst. Professor,
Forensic Department, Government Medical College Hospital, Manjeri who
2026:KER:39131
Crl.Appeal No.1101/2024 20
had conducted DNA test of the accused on 21.1.2015. Ext. P14 and Ext.
P15 documents were marked through him. Ext. P14 is the letter issued by
Dr. Sanjay and Ext. P15 is the carbon copy of the letter from Dr. Sanjay.
Exts.P14 and P15 would show that the accused was subjected to DNA
examination. PW17 was also the Medical Officer who was in charge of
blood bank, General Hospital, Thrissur, who collected blood samples of
two months old male child brought by WCPO attached to Kondotty police
station in this case.
15. PW18 was the CPO, attached to Circle Inspector Office
Kondotty. On 4.9.2015 he had witnessed to seizure mahazer for taking
birth certificate into custody by Circle Inspector of Police. PW19 was the
PRO attached to Eranad Hospital, Manjeri. He had witnessed preparation
of Ext.P7mahazer for taking the case sheet into custody. PW20 was the
doctor who attached to Eranad Hospital, Manjeri. On 8.11.2014, PW20
had examined the victim. According to PW20 at the time of
examination the victim was pregnant, PW20 further deposed that at 3.10
a.m on 5.12.2014 the victim delivered a male child having 2.450 kilo
weight.
2026:KER:39131
Crl.Appeal No.1101/2024 21
16. PW21 was the Sub Inspector of Police, Kondotty police
station, who registered FIR vide crime No. 44/2015, on the basis of the
complaint lodged by PW1. FIR was marked as Ext. P3(a). PW21 further
affirmed his signature on Ext.P3(a). PW22 was the joint director (research)
in FSL, Thiruvananthapuram, who examined the samples forwarded by the
investigating agency. The result of the examination would show that the
accused, Mohandas as the biological father of the child and Satyarthi
(PW2) as the biological mother of the child.
17. PW23 was the investigating officer in this case. On
9.1.2015 he took over the investigation in this case. As a part of
investigation, PW23 subjected the victim for medical examination and
obtained relevant certificates from the doctor. During the process of the
investigation PW23 proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared
Ext. P5 scene mahazer in the presence of the witness. As per Ext.P5
mahazer, the place of occurrence is a room in a building No.1/108 owned
by PW13. He testified further that as part of investigation at 5.30 pm on
09.01.2015, the accused was arrested. The arrest memo and arrest
intimation were marked as Exts.P21 and P22. Further the accused was
2026:KER:39131
Crl.Appeal No.1101/2024 22
brought before the Medical College Hospital, for conducting potency
result and obtained Ext. P12 certificate, Ext. P23 is the report forwarded
by PW23 for adding the name and address of the accused in FIR. On
21.1.2015 accused was given custody to PW23 for taking DNA profiling and
taking blood samples. Further PW23 prepared Ext. P7 seizure mahazer for
taking letters into custody.
Thereafter, the victim was brought before
Medical College Hospital, Manjeri for taking blood samples for DNA
profiling. Ext. P9 was prepared by PW23 for taking the blood samples from
the Medical College Hospital, Manjeri into custody. PW23 further deposed
that he produced material objects involved in this case before the court.
Exts.P7, P8 and P9 documents were the mahazers prepared by PW23 for
taking material objects into custody. PW23 collected case sheets from
Medical College Hospital as per Ext. P7 seizure mahazer. Thereafter,
PW23 obtained Ext. P6 birth certificate from PW6. Ext.P24 is the report
to add Sections 5(j) (ii), 5(1), 5(0), 5(p) r/w 6 of POCSO Act. PW23
testified that after verification of the investigation report he laid the charge
against the accused.
18. Going through the evidence as discussed, penetrative
2026:KER:39131
Crl.Appeal No.1101/2024 23
sexual assault at the instance of the appellant/accused against a minor
victim (aged below 18 years), consequential pregnancy by the victim and
delivery of a child are proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable
doubts. Since the victim is a minor, the question of consent in the sexual
intercourse cannot be considered. The evidence tendered by PW2, the
victim, is supported by other material evidence as already discussed.
Therefore, the learned Special Judge rightly held that the accused
committed the said offences, and the conviction is liable to be confirmed.
19. Coming to the sentence, going through the sentence
imposed on par with the nature and seriousness of the offences committed
by the appellant/accused, no interference in the sentence is found
justifiable. Therefore, the sentence also is liable to be confirmed.
20. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed by
confirming the conviction and sentence under challenge.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the
Special Court for information.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE
rtr/