REJI vs STATE OF KERALA

CNR : KLHC010254762025

2026:KER:66679
Crl.Appeal No.545/2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
ST
TUESDAY, THE 1 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 10TH BHADRA, 1948
CRL.A NO. 545 OF 2025
CRIME NO.728/2015 OF Ramankary Police Station, Alappuzha
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.02.2025 IN SC NO.280 OF 2016 OF
SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES RELATING TO ATROCITIES AGAINST
WOMEN AND CHILDREN INCLUDING POCSO CASES (ADDL.SESSIONS COURT-I),
ALAPPUZHA
APPELLANT/ACCUSED
REJI
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O MANIYAN, KALLUPARAMBIL VEEDU, KUNNAMKARY MURI,
VELIYANADU PANCHAYATH, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN –
689590.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN
SMT.S.INDU
SHRI.GOVIND H. NAIR
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI M A SHIHAB
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD 11.08.2026,
THE COURT ON 01.09.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CNR : KLHC010254762025

2026:KER:66679
Crl.Appeal No.545/2025
2
“C.R”
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
================================
Crl.Appeal No.545 of 2025
================================
st
Dated this the 1 day of September, 2026
J U D G M E N T
The sole accused in S.C.No.280/2016 on the files of the Special
Court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act
[`POCSO Act’ for short hereinafter], Alappuzha, has preferred this appeal
assailing the judgment dated 22.02.2025 in the said case.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the prosecution. Perused the
verdict under challenge and the evidence available.
3. Here the prosecution case is that the accused subjected
the victim, aged 17 years, by dragging her to the courtyard of her house
and tying her hands towards the root of the jack fruit tree standing in the
courtyard. The specific allegation is that then the accused had inserted his
penis into her vagina and done aggravated sexual assault on her, and

CNR : KLHC010254762025

2026:KER:66679
Crl.Appeal No.545/2025
3
thereby committed the offences punishable under Section 342 and 376 of
the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) and under Section 4(1) r/w 3(a) of
the POCSO Act, by the appellant/accused.
4. The learned Special Judge, on completing the pre-trial
formalities, recorded evidence. PW1 to PW12 were examined and Exts.P1
to P11 were marked on the side of the prosecution. On the side of defense,
during cross examination of PW5, PW1 and PW12, Exts.D1 to D7
contradictions were marked. Thereafter, the learned Special Judge, on
meticulous analysis of the evidence, found that the appellant/accused
committed the offences punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 376(2)
(f) of IPC and under Section 4(1) r/w 3(a) of the POCSO Act and he was
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine
of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple
imprisonment for a further period of six months.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the
appellant/accused in this case had been falsely implicated in this crime
without support of any cogent materials. According to him, even though
the occurrence alleged by the prosecution was on 17.11.2014, FIS was

CNR : KLHC010254762025

2026:KER:66679
Crl.Appeal No.545/2025
4
given only on 25.12.2015, that too, after registration of another crime on
24.12.2015, viz., Crime No.725/2015, (copy of the FIR in the said crime
was marked as Ext.D4 and final report got marked as Ext.D6) against the
appellant/accused for assaulting the father of the victim; as an
afterthought, to put the appellant/accused behind the bars. According to
the learned counsel for the appellant/accused, the fundamental facts
regarding sexual assault failed to be proved by the prosecution and
credible evidence in this regard also not adduced. According to him, in
Ext.P6 scene mahazar, there is no mention regarding a jack fruit tree, where
PW1 was tied before the commission of sexual assault. He also submitted
that the delay in lodging the FIR had not at all been properly explained.
According to him, Crime No.725/2015 as per Ext.D4 and Ext.D6, ended in
compromise, which led to Ext.D7 judgment in C.C.No.144/2016. On
these grounds, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused prayed for
interference in the verdict impugned, to set aside the same and to record
acquittal of the accused.
6. Whereas the learned Public Prosecutor zealously
opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the

CNR : KLHC010254762025

2026:KER:66679
Crl.Appeal No.545/2025
5
appellant/accused and submitted that the evidence of PW1 supported by
other evidence, including that of PW8, the sister of the father of PW1,
satisfactorily established the ingredients for the offence punishable under
Section 4(1) r/w 3(a) of the POCSO Act. He also submitted that the
medical evidence would also support sexual assault as against PW1. Thus
the learned Public Prosecutor pressed for confirming the verdict impugned.
7. In view of the rival contentions, the points arise for
consideration are:
(i) Whether the Special Court erred in holding that the accused
committed the offence punishable under Section 4(1) r/w 3(a) of the
POCSO Act?
(ii) Is it necessary to interfere with the impugned judgment
in any manner?
(iii) The order to be passed?
Point Nos.(i) to (iii)
8. Here in order to prove the age of PW1 (victim) as on the
date of occurrence was below 18 years, PW2 retired Principal of
Government Higher Secondary School, Kidangara, where PW1 was a

CNR : KLHC010254762025

2026:KER:66679
Crl.Appeal No.545/2025
6
student for Plus One-Plus Two course during 2015-2017, was examined
and Ext.P3, the certificate issued by her showing the date of birth of PW1
as 08.12.1998 prepared on the basis of Plus One admission register and her
SSLC book and Ext.P3(a), the abstract of admission register, showing the
date of birth, were tendered in evidence. PW1 also deposed her date of
birth as 08.12.1998. In fact, the status of PW1 as that of a child, as defined
under Section 2(1)(d) of the POCSO Act, is not disputed, rather the
prosecution successfully proved the same.
9. As regards to the occurrence, the crucial evidence is that
of PW1, the victim. According to her, the occurrence was while she was
studying in Plus one Course in the Government Higher Secondary School,
Kidangara. She deposed that during the time of occurrence, she had stayed
along with her father, elder and younger brothers. She identified the
accused in this case by name Reji @ Appappi @ Kochukochu at the dock.
PW1 further deposed that while she had been studying for Plus Two
Course, there was festival in a nearby temple and her father and siblings
went to see the program in connection with the festival. At the time of
occurrence, her mother and she were at the house and at 10 p.m, she heard

CNR : KLHC010254762025

2026:KER:66679
Crl.Appeal No.545/2025
7
a knock on the door and she opened the same, expecting her father, but she
found the accused outside. Then the accused caught hold of her and
brought out. Then the accused removed her dress and put a cloth on the
floor and laid her. Thereafter he had taken a shawl and tied her hands to a
nearby jack fruit tree. Then he removed her dress and inserted his
penis into her vagina. She felt pain and she cried. But her mother
did not notice the overt acts as she went to sleep after taking
medicines. According to her, the accused continued the same for some
time, while so, her father was found returning from the Church by
carrying a torch light. On seeing the light, the accused left the place and
the occurrence was on 17.11.2014. According to her, thereafter, she
herself untied her hands and stood up. Thereafter she did not disclose
the occurrence to anyone at the house as she was afraid of the same, so that
the father would make quarrel. She deposed further that thereafter on two
occasions also the accused repeated the sexual assault. Again the
appellant/accused met her, while she was going to the college and spoke
about the same and she informed the same to her father that she was
disturbed by the accused. Then the father asked the same and there

CNR : KLHC010254762025

2026:KER:66679
Crl.Appeal No.545/2025
8
occurred a scuffle in between them. She also informed the disturbance
from the accused to her father’s sister and she also warned the accused in
this regard. According to her, police registered a case in connection with
the repeated sexual molestation at the instance of the accused. She
admitted Ext.P1, FIS given by her to the police and Ext.P2, 164
statement given by her before the Magistrate in connection with this
crime. During cross examination, PW1 admitted that she had love affair
with the accused and also she admitted that the song in Ext.D2 was
written by her. In fact, Ext.D2 was dated 04.05.2016, as pointed out by
the learned Public Prosecutor. Ext.D3, the next page of Ext.D2 also shown
to PW1 would suggest that “I love you” was written by her. But she
denied the same. It was suggested that the victim asked the accused to
come out and when the accused was not ready to accompany her, this case
was foisted.
10. In this case apart from the evidence of PW1, prosecution
examined PW8, PW6, PW7 and PW11.
11. PW8 Ponnamma is the father’s sister of PW1. She deposed
that PW1 is the daughter of her brother Ponnappan and her brother and

CNR : KLHC010254762025

2026:KER:66679
Crl.Appeal No.545/2025
9
his family were residing in a rented house. The mother of the
survivor was alive during the time of occurrence of the crime but she died
later. According to her, on a day of 2016, PW1 was found in a depressive
mood and on enquiry, PW1 told her about the sexual exploitation by a
neighbour named Reji. Soon PW1 was taken to the Hospital and she also
accompanied PW1. PW1 narrated the incidents to the doctor in her
presence. It was then she came to know about the rape committed by the
accused on PW1. PW1 was born on 08.12.1998. The father of PW1 was
assaulted by the accused when he questioned about the incident. She also
deposed about intervention of the police in this occurrence.
12. Dr.Deepika K.V, the Senior Resident Medical Officer at the
Alappuzha Medical College Hospital gave evidence as PW6 that at 02.00
p.m on 26.12.2015, she had examined PW1 in this case, who was brought
with history of alleged sexual assault. PW1 told the doctor about the
history of forceful sexual intercourse by a neighbour Reji (the accused).
She narrated history of penetration and repeated intercourse at her
residence done by the accused after holding her breasts by the accused.
The doctor deposed as reported in Ext.P7 that 'P/V admits 1

CNR : KLHC010254762025

2026:KER:66679
Crl.Appeal No.545/2025
10
finger loose'. The doctor opined that there was possibility of
sexual intercourse and she had admitted issuance of Ext.P7 Certificate
in this regard. The doctor also deposed that PW1 was brought before her
by Ponnamma(PW8).
13. The Medical Officer at the Department of Forensic
Medicine at Alappuzha, Dr.Anilkumar, got examined as PW7. He
deposed that while he was working at the Medical College Hospital, he
had conducted potency examination of the accused and he had issued
Ext.P-8 Certificate stating that “there is nothing to suggest that the accused
is incapable of performing sexual acts”.
14. PW11, the Station House Officer of Ramankary police
station, given evidence that he had registered Ext.P-9 FIR on 25.12.2015
based on the FIS given by PW1. Further he deposed that he had issued
requisition to the concerned Magistrate for recording the statement of the
survivor. He had identified by Ext.P10 report given by him narrating the
name and address of the accused.
15. PW11 Investigating Officer deposed about the
investigation he conducted. He deposed about preparation of Ext.P6 Scene

CNR : KLHC010254762025

2026:KER:66679
Crl.Appeal No.545/2025
11
Mahazar. PW5, a witness to Ext.P6 Scene Mahazar, had identified his
signature therein and he supported the prosecution case. He deposed
further that there was reference as to a root found on the courtyard of the
house in the scene of occurrence. This root project open in 'V' shape. PW3
gave evidence as Village Officer of Veliyanadu Village that, on
14.03.2016, he had visited the scene of occurrence and prepared Ext.P4
scene plan. According to him, the south-western corner of the house and
courtyard on the west were the scene of occurrence. PW4 was the
Secretary of Veliyanadu Grama Panchayath, who prepared and issued
Ext.P5 Ownership Certificate, deposed that the place of occurrence was
the house, owned by the father of PW1. He also deposed that Ext.P5
ownership certificate was prepared on verification of the Assessment
Register maintained at the Panchayath.
16. The investigation of this case was proceeded by PW12
Umeshkumar and he deposed about the investigation he had conducted,
without any ambiguity.
17. In this case, Ext.P1 FIS, given by the victim was
recorded by PW9 Sreedevi, Sub Inspector of Police, Vanitha Cell,

CNR : KLHC010254762025

2026:KER:66679
Crl.Appeal No.545/2025
12
Alappuzha, and she was accompanied by one Senior Civil Police Officer
by name Sreelatha, and she had written the FIS. PW10, the Judicial First
Class Magistrate-I, Alappuzha, deposed that as on 14.01.2016, she had
recorded the statement of PW1 under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (`Cr.P.C’ for short). She identified the same as Ext.P2 and she
deposed that the contents therein were recorded by her.
18. The crucial question arises for consideration is whether
the story of false implication, as argued by the learned counsel for the
appellant/accused, has legs to stand or else, the learned Special Judge is
right in finding commission of offence punishable under Section 4(1) r/w
3(a) of the POCSO Act by the accused.
19. As regards to the contention raised by the learned for the
appellant/accused that the appellant/accused was falsely implicated in this
case, after the accused assaulted the father of the victim, which led to
registration of Ext.D4 FIR as on 24.12.2015 and which ended in Ext.D6
final report, it is relevant to note that the sexual assault, as per the
prosecution case and as spoken by PW1, was on 17.11.2014. Thereafter,
the accused assaulted the father of the victim and for which Ext.D4 FIR

CNR : KLHC010254762025

2026:KER:66679
Crl.Appeal No.545/2025
13
was registered on 24.12.2015 and thereafter on 25.12.2015 Ext.P9 FIR in
this occurrence was registered. In this connection, it is very pertinent to
observe that the evidence available would show that the accused assaulted
the father of the victim, when the father questioned about the sexual
assault at the instance of the accused which occurred on 17.11.2014. Thus
assault at the instance of the accused on the father of the victim was generated
in the above manner. Even though subsequently the said case was
compromised, that by itself is not a reason to find that the accused had been
falsely implicated in this crime, as contended. Similar is the position regarding
the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that the
fundamental facts regarding sexual assault were failed to be proved and that
there was no credible evidence in this regard, since the prosecution has a
specific case imbibed on a strong foundation as regards to the repeated
aggravated sexual assaults committed by the accused on the victim. The
specific case of the prosecution is that PW1 was subjected to aggravated sexual
assault on 17.11.2014 after tying her both hands on a jack fruit tree nearby. It is
true that in the scene mahazar, Ext.P6, presence of jack fruit tree, as such could
not be found. In this connection, PW1 had given evidence during cross
examination that, after the occurrence on 17.11.2014, some trees were cut and

CNR : KLHC010254762025

2026:KER:66679
Crl.Appeal No.545/2025
14
removed. This aspect to be fortified by the evidence of PW11 along with
Ext.P6. In Ext.P6, the presence of a root projected upon in `V’ shape
found on the courtyard, ie. at the place of occurrence. Therefore, the
absence of description regarding the presence of jack fruit tree in Ext.P6
mahazar is not a reason to disbelieve the prosecution case. Consequently
this contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is found
against.
20. It is true that a love relationship in between the accused
and PW1 could be seen from the evidence. When the victim is a minor,
love relationship or even consensual sex would have no relevance.
Therefore, this aspect also would not help the appellant/accused to get out
of the prosecution. To sum up, it is held that the contentions raised by the
learned counsel for the appellant/accused to unsustain the verdict
impugned lack merits.
21. On re-appreciation of the evidence adduced by the
prosecution, it could be gathered that the evidence of PW1 is reliable and
is of sterling quality, and the same can be acted upon to find the
commission of the offences found by the learned Special Judge and there

CNR : KLHC010254762025

2026:KER:66679
Crl.Appeal No.545/2025
15
is no reason to hold that the accused was falsely implicated in this case.
Thus the conviction imposed by the learned Special Judge is liable to be
confirmed.
22. Coming to the sentence, the Special Court imposed the
minimum punishment provided for the above offences and in such
circumstance, no reduction in sentence also practically possible. In view
of the matter, the sentence is also to be confirmed.
23. In the result, the Appeal fails and is accordingly
dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Court are
confirmed. As a sequel thereof, the order suspending sentence and
granting bail to the accused stands cancelled and the bail bond also stands
cancelled.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the
Special Court for information.
Sd/-

A. BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE
rtr/