MOHAMMED RIJAS vs STATE OF KERALA

CNR : KLHC010935842025
2026:KER:67823
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
TH
MONDAY, THE 7 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 16TH BHADRA, 1948
CRL.A NO. 2087 OF 2025
CRIME NO.955/2015 OF KALPAKANCHERY POLICE STATION,
MALAPPURAM
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.10.2025 IN SC NO.157
OF 2016 OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT, TIRUR
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
MOHAMMED RIJAS
AGED 27 YEARS,
S/O USMAN,
KUTTIPPURATHODI,
RANDATHANI P.O,
CHANTHAPPARAMB,
PIN - 676510
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)
SRI.P.M.RAFIQ
SHRI.AARON ZACHARIAS BENNY
SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN
SRI.AJEESH K.SASI
SRUTHY N. BHAT
SMT.SRUTHY K.K
SMT.NANDITHA S.
SHRI.SOHAIL AHAMMED HARRIS P.P.
SRI.RAHUL SUNIL
SHRI.K.ARAVIND MENON

CNR : KLHC010935842025
Crl.A. No. 2087 of 2025
2
2026:KER:67823
RESPONDENTS:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
BY SRI.M. A. SHIHAB, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
17.08.2026, THE COURT ON 07.09.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

CNR : KLHC010935842025
Crl.A. No. 2087 of 2025
3
2026:KER:67823
'C.R.'

JUDGMENT
th
Dated this the 07 day of September, 2026
The sole accused in S.C. No.157/2016 on the files of the
Fast Track Special Court Tirur, has filed this appeal, under
Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the
Special Judge, against him as per the judgment dated
23.10.2025 in the said case. The State of Kerala, represented
by the Public Prosecutor is arrayed as the respondent herein.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused
and the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent. Perused
the judgment under challenge and the records of the Special
Court.
3. The prosecution case is that the appellant/accused
at about 8:30 AM, on 14.09.2015, criminally trespassed into
the bed room of the house building No:20/227 in Marakkara
Panchayath and on several days, till 20 days prior to
14.09.2015, repeatedly committed penetrative sexual assault

CNR : KLHC010935842025
Crl.A. No. 2087 of 2025
4
2026:KER:67823
by penetrating his penis into the vaginal part of PW1, a minor
girl, aged 11 years. Thereafter, the appellant/accused
threatened to kill the victim, stating that, if she would disclose
the incident to anybody. Thereby, the prosecution alleges
commission of offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(i)
and 376(2)(n), 450 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for short) and Section 6
read with Section 5(m), 6 read with 5(l) of Protection of
Children From Sexual Offences Act, (hereinafter referred to as
the 'POCSO Act', for short) by the appellant/accused.
4. The learned Special Judge, after framing charge for
the above said offences, recorded evidence and completed
trial. During trial, PW1 to PW19 were examined, Exts.P1 to P21
and MO1 to MO3 were marked on the side of the prosecution.
Exts. D1 to D5 were marked on the side of defence.
5. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Special
Judge found that the appellant/accused committed offences
punishable Sections 450, 376(2)(i) and 506 of the IPC as well
as Section 6 read with Section 5(m) of the POCSO Act and,
accordingly, the appellant/accused was convicted for the said
offences and sentenced as under:-

CNR : KLHC010935842025
Crl.A. No. 2087 of 2025
5
2026:KER:67823
“In the result
1. The Accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of
₹25000/- (Twenty Five Thousand Rupees Only) for the offence
punishable under S. 450 of IPC. In default of payment of fine
accused shall undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a further
period of 6 months.
2. The Accused is also sentenced to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 2 years for the offence
punishable under S. 506 of IPC.
3. The Accused is also sentenced to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a
fine of ₹.50000/- (Fifty Thousand Rupees Only) for the offence
punishable under S.6 r/w 5 (m) of PoCSO Act. In default of
payment of fine accused shall undergo Rigorous Imprisonment
for a further period of 1 year.
4. Substantive Sentence shall run concurrently.
5. Accused is allowed to get set off on the
substantive sentence of imprisonment for a period from
28.10.2015 to 01.12.2015 the period he had undergone
detention as an under trial prisoner.
6. Fine if realized, the amount of ₹.75,000/- (Eighty
Five Thousand Rupees only) shall be given to PW1 as
compensation U/S.357(1)(b) Cr.PC.
7. This court hereby recommended to the State
Government through DLSA, Manjeri to make adequate
compensation to PW1 victim for medical expenses, education
and rehabilitation, under S.357 A of the Code criminal
procedure 1973, and S.33(8) of Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act in addition to the compensation U/S 357
(1) (b) of Cr.PC passed above. Office of this court is directed to
send a copy of this Judgment to the District Legal Service

CNR : KLHC010935842025
Crl.A. No. 2087 of 2025
6
2026:KER:67823
Authority Chairman for necessary action.
8. MO1 to MO3 are dresses of victim, shall be
destroyed after the expiry of appeal period.”
6. The learned Senior Counsel Adv. P. Vijayabhanu, who
argued the case for and on behalf of the appellant raised
improbability in the prosecution case contending that earlier crime
was registered and final report filed alleging that the accused
committed repeated penetrative sexual assault on the victim for a
period of two years upto 14.09.2015. Thereafter, the accused
pleaded his juvenilty and on this basis further investigation carried
out and supplementary final report had been filed stating that the
occurrence was on 14.09.2015 and 20 days prior to that, to
brought the accused as an adult man during the period of
occurrence. It is submitted further that in Ext.P8, the initial
medical certificate and Ext. P11 the subsequent medical
certificate, prepared after examination of the victim, who was
examined as PW1, none of the doctors pointed out any signs of
any sexual assault. According to him, Ext.P1 FIS was
lodged on 21.09.2015 and PW14, who registered the crime based
on Ext.P1 deposed before the court that Ext.P1 was placed before
him by CW2/PW2, CW3/PW3, CW6 and CW8 and at the time of
lodging of Ext. P1, PW1 was absent. He also submitted that in this

CNR : KLHC010935842025
Crl.A. No. 2087 of 2025
7
2026:KER:67823
context Ext.P3, a note written by the victim, also would not be
believed, otherwise the same in no way suggest any act of sexual
assault. He also submitted that in the circumstances of the case,
the evidence of PW1 is not of sterling quality to be acted upon and
therefore, the learned Special Judge went wrong in placing
reliance on the evidence of PW1 to find commission of the above
offences by the appellant/accused.
7. The learned Senior Counsel highlighted the decision of
the Apex Court reported in Rai Sandeeep v. State of NCT of
Delhi [Manu/SC/0623/2012 : AIR 2012 SC 3157] , decided
on 07.08.2012 and in paragraph No. 15, the Apex Court explained
the qualification of a sterling witness and held as under:-
“15. In our considered opinion, the ‘sterling witness’
should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version
should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the
version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for
its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of
such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial
and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the
statement made by such a witness. What would be more
relevant would be the consistency of the statement right
from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when
the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before
the Court. It should be natural and consistent with the case
of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any

CNR : KLHC010935842025
Crl.A. No. 2087 of 2025
8
2026:KER:67823
prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness
should be in a position to withstand the cross- examination
of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under
no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the
factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as,
the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation
with each and everyone of other supporting material such as
the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of
offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert
opinion. The said version should consistently match with the
version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it
should be akin to the test applied in the case of
circumstantial evidence where there should not be any
missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the
accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the
version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as
all other similar such tests to be applied, it can be held that
such a witness can be called as a ‘sterling witness’ whose
version can be accepted by the Court without any
corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished.
To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the
core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all
other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and
material objects should match the said version in material
particulars in order to enable the Court trying the offence to
rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting
materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge
alleged.”
8. According to the learned Senior counsel for the
appellant/accused, in the instant case, the evidence relied on by

CNR : KLHC010935842025
Crl.A. No. 2087 of 2025
9
2026:KER:67823
the learned Special Judge to enter into conviction is not fully free
from doubts and the accused/appellant, a tender boy, is entitled to
get benefit of doubts.
9. Whereas the learned Public Prosecutor strongly
opposed these contentions and submitted that as per the evidence
given by PW19 supported by Ext.P14 birth certificate of the
appellant/accused, his date of birth is shown 04.08.1997.
Therefore, as on 14.09.2015 and 40 days prior to that the accused
was a major. Therefore, merely the prosecution put up a case as
to commission of offences, two years prior to 14.09.2015 initially
to make the prosecution case unbelievable.
10. In order to buttress his argument, he has given much
emphasis to Ext.P3, a handwritten letter produced by the
prosecution alleged to be taken by PW2, the foster mother, from
the bag of PW1, who is the sister of PW3, the mother of the victim
on 15.09.2015 i.e., immediately after the occurrence on
14.09.2015, to show that there was commission of sexual assault
by the accused. Thus, according to the learned Public Prosecutor,
PW1 is a witness of sterling quality. Therefore, the prosecution
case is well proved by the evidence of PW1 supported by other
evidence. According to him, mere absence of corroborative

CNR : KLHC010935842025
Crl.A. No. 2087 of 2025
10
2026:KER:67823
evidence in the form of medical opinion would not make the
prosecution case unbelievable as full penetration or rupture of
hymen are not the inevitable requirement of penetrative sexual
assault, as repeatedly held by the Apex Court and this Court.
Accordingly, he pressed for confirmation of the judgment
impugned.
11. In view of the rival submissions, the points arise for
consideration are:
1. Whether the Special Court is justified in
finding that the accused committed the offence
under Section 450 of the IPC ?
2. Whether the Special Court is justified in
finding that the accused committed the offence
under Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC ?
3. Whether the Special Court is justified in
finding that the accused committed the offence
under 506 of the IPC ?
4. Whether the Special Court is justified in
finding that the accused committed the offence
under Section 6 read with 5(m) of the POCSO Act ?
5. Whether the verdict of the Special Court
would require interference?
6. Order to be passed?
12. Point Nos. 1 to 6: In this case, the age of the victim,

CNR : KLHC010935842025
Crl.A. No. 2087 of 2025
11
2026:KER:67823
as a minor during the relevant time is not disputed or else the
same is proved by the prosecution through PW12 and PW8 with
support of Ext. P2, copy of SSLC certificate and Ext.P10 birth
certificate of PW1.
13. Regarding the occurrence, the crucial evidence is that
of PW1 and according to PW1, in connection with the repeated
sexual assaults, a complaint was written in her handwriting and
given to the police. PW1 deposed that she was raped by her
neighbor Rijas @ Muthu. At that time, she was studying at GUP
School Randathani. According to her, she had father, mother,
brother and four elder sisters. The incident had occurred, while
she was residing at the house of her mother’s younger sister and
she used to call her as Mummy. Since her mother’s sister had no
children, she was taken by her mother's sister and had been
residing along with her at her house. The husband of her Mummy
was employed in Dubai. Her Mummy was working in the Post
Office and she used to go to her work place at 8 AM and come
th
back at 4 - 5 PM. While she was studying in 4 standard the
accused tried to keep her in his custody. He attempted to hold her
hand and after closing her mouth pulled her into the bedroom and
attempted to make her to lay on the bed, after locking the door.

CNR : KLHC010935842025
Crl.A. No. 2087 of 2025
12
2026:KER:67823
th
But she saved herself. While she was studying in 5 standard also
the accused entered into the house of Mummy and attempted to
assault her, but she escaped from him. Thereafter while she was
th
studying in 6 standard, at 8:30 AM, on 14.09.2015, when she
had entered into the house of Mummy for taking her books to go
to school, after returning from the Madrassa, the accused also
entered into the house by following her, then he pulled her into
the room by closing her mouth and locked the door. Then he made
her to lay on the bed and removed her pants and panties, the
accused also removed his pants and underwear then penetrated
his penis into her urinary part. She felt pain and thereby she cried.
At the time the accused closed her mouth, thereby she bit on his
hand and raised hue and noise, thereby the accused stood up and
left from there. Before leaving from there the accused also
threatened to kill her, if she would disclose the overt acts to
anybody. Thus she did not tell the incident to anybody. The
accused committed the above acts on several times till 20 days
prior to 14.09.2015 and on 14.09.2015. After the incident on
14.09.2015, she wrote a letter to the accused alerting that if he
would continue his acts, she would tell the incident to the inmates
of her house. Then she put that letter into her bag. While her

CNR : KLHC010935842025
Crl.A. No. 2087 of 2025
13
2026:KER:67823
Mummy inspecting her bag the letter was found. Thus, her
Mummy informed the same to child line. On 21.09.2015, the
police reached the house of the Mummy and she identified Ext.P1
the written complaint made by her. The room where the
occurrence took place was shown to the police by PW1 and the
dresses worn by her at the time of incident were also shown to the
police by PW1. The dresses were identified by her as MO1 to MO3.
She also identified Ext.P3 letter which was written by her and kept
in her bag after the last incident to give it to the accused as a
warning to him. Thereafter the accused was arrested and had
shown to her and she identified the accused. She also identified
the accused at the dock. She further stated that the sister of the
th
accused was studying along with her in 4 standard. When she
visited the house of accused to play with his sister, the accused
alone was in that house and he also attempted to assault her in
that house, but she herself rescued.
14. During cross examination, she had admitted that she
was aware about the incident happened to her when she was
writing the Ext.P3 Letter, and during the relevant period, the
accused was studying in college. She and the accused were
relatives. The house of accused was situated at 60 meter distance

CNR : KLHC010935842025
Crl.A. No. 2087 of 2025
14
2026:KER:67823
from the left side of the house of her Mummy. She admitted that
the mother of accused was always in the house as she did not go
to any job. The house of her grand mother also situated on the
right side of her Mummy’s house. Mummy’s younger sister had
been residing along with her grandmother. Ext.P1 was written by
her at the house of her Mummy in presence of the persons from
child line and her Mummy. The women police also in her house at
that time thereby she handed over the complaint written in her
handwriting to the police. Since the police asked her to write her
name, father’s name and place and then told her to write what
was the occurrence, she wrote Ext.P1 complaint. But she did not
remember whether she went to police station on the date of
Ext.P1. But she admitted that she went to the police station 2-3
times. She also stated that she gave her additional statement for
2 or 3 times but she did not remember the exact dates on which
she gave her statements. She admitted that she bit on the palm of
the hand of accused for 2 or 4 times. On 14.09.2015 also she bit
on his hand which caused pain to him. She reiterated that she
wrote in the complaint, and also stated to police and to the
Magistrate that she was assaulted by the accused on several days
till 20 days prior to 14.09.2015 and on 14.09.2015. But she did

CNR : KLHC010935842025
Crl.A. No. 2087 of 2025
15
2026:KER:67823
not state the date on which she was assaulted prior to 20 days
before 14.09.2015. She was taken to Tirur Government Hospital
and another hospital. During re examination she deposed that the
st th
1 incident of sexual assault was while she was studying in 6
standard. She answered in cross examination that the incident
th
was happened while she was studying in her 4 standard was
st
only with regard to the 1 attempt. During further cross
examination she affirmed that she did not state in Ext.P1 that the
th
sexual assault was caused to her while she was studying in her 6
standard. She also stated that she did not remember whether she
had made a statement to Magistrate that the incident like earlier
th
stated was started while she was studying in her 5 standard. The
above portion in the statement given by her to the Magistrate is
marked as Ext.D1.
15. In order to prove the date of occurrence, the
prosecution had relied on the evidence of PW1 victim, PW2 the
foster mother, who is the sister of the mother of PW1, PW3 and
PW4, the parents of the victim, PW14, who registered the FIR,
PW18, the Investigating officer and Ext.P1 and Ext.P3. PW2 is the
sister of the mother of PW1 and was the foster mother of PW1,
PW1 called her as Mummy. Her evidence is that she had no

CNR : KLHC010935842025
Crl.A. No. 2087 of 2025
16
2026:KER:67823
children. Thus she took PW1 at the age of 3 years and she
fostered her. Her husband was abroad. The accused Rijas who was
the neighbor of her house sexually assaulted PW1. Rijas was the
grand child of her mother in law. According to her, she had been
residing in Randathani and she had been working as Postal
Assistant during the period of occurrence. The accused sexually
th
assaulted PW1 at her house while PW1 was studying in her 6
standard. But PW1 did not tell the incident to her. She used to
keep the books in the bag as per the time table in every day. On
th
15 morning, when she was putting the books in the bag, a letter
found in the bag was taken by her. By the time, PW1 was in
Madrassa. She read the letter and it was written as “if repeated
this I would tell your father and you should be beaten by your
father, so don’t repeat it”. She also wrote “Okey” “Rijas”. She
identified the said letter, marked as Ext.P3. Due to stress, she
immediately went to her family house and had shown the letter to
her mother then she went to office and come back early at 3 PM
from the office. Thereafter, she enquired about the letter to PW1
and she told the incident and she cried while disclosing the same.
PW1 further told her that the accused also threatened to kill her.
PW1 told her about the incident that in the previous day morning

CNR : KLHC010935842025
Crl.A. No. 2087 of 2025
17
2026:KER:67823
after Mummy was going to office, when she came to her house
after her Madrassa class for taking her bag from the house, when
she opened the door the accused reached behind her and entered
into the house, closed her mouth and took her to the bedroom.
Then he had removed her pants then he pressed his penis into the
urinary part of PW1. When she felt pain she had bitten on the
hand of accused. She also told that the accused done similar acts
on prior occasions. When she was asked, why she didn’t tell the
incident to her, PW1 told her that due to scared condition and fear
she did not tell the incident. On the next day, she met the father
of the accused at his house and informed about the incident, but,
th
they denied the incident. Thus she returned from there and on 19
th
she had informed the occurrence to the child line and on 20 the
child line officials reached at the house and her child wrote the
incident in a paper then she along with the mother of the child,
the sister of PW2, went to Kalpakanchery Police station and gave
st
the complaint written by the child. On 21 the police reached at
her house and recorded the statement of the child and her
statement. The police searched the room which was shown to
them by the child in presence of witnesses. Her office staff
Radhesh and her neighbor Abdul Rahiman were present at the

CNR : KLHC010935842025
Crl.A. No. 2087 of 2025
18
2026:KER:67823
time. Thereafter, the child was taken by a woman police to the
police station. Then she was taken to Hospital, Tirur and she was
also produced before the Magistrate, to record her statement.
After two days, PW1 was taken to Medical College Hospital
Kozhikode. The dress of the victim was also produced to the police
and she identified the MO1 to MO3 as the dress of PW1 before the
court. The photograph of the accused was also shown to PW1 from
the phone of the police. PW3 the mother of PW1 and sister of PW2
fully supported the evidence of PW1 and PW2.
16. The father of PW1 examined as PW4 deposed that he
th
had 6 children. PW1 was his 5 child. PW3 is his wife and PW2 is
the younger sister of his wife. The accused is the relative of his
wife and is a neighbor of his wife’s house. PW1 was residing along
th
with PW2. While his daughter was studying at her 6 standard,
PW3 called him, and informed the occurrence. He identified the
accused before court. During cross examination, he deposed that
during the period of occurrence, he was abroad and he returned
on knowing the occurrence and then went to police station.
17. PW5 examined in this case is the counsellor in Child
Line, Malappuram worked in the year 2015. She testified that on
20.09.2015 she along with CW6 (PW16) Anwar, CW8 Rasheed

CNR : KLHC010935842025
Crl.A. No. 2087 of 2025
19
2026:KER:67823
went to the house of PW2, who is the sister of PW3 at Randathani
on the basis of a complaint received on 19.09.2015 on the
allegation that the survivor was sexually assaulted by a person in
the neighboring house. When they reached at the house, PW1 to
PW3 were present there. They told him that their relative and
neighbor, named Rijas, sexually assaulted PW1.
18. Ext. P4, mahazar prepared pertaining to the room of
the house where the occurrence took place and Ext.P5, Mahazar
pertaining to production of the dress of the victim were tendered
in evidence through PW6.
19. Ext.P6 sketch plan was tendered in evidence through
PW6, the then Village Officer of Marakkara Village, which is
identified by him before court.
20. PW8, the Secretary of Marakkara Grama Panchayath
deposed that as per the request of the CI of police Valanchery he
had issued Ext.P7, the ownership certificate of house No:20/277
of Marakkara Grama Panchayath and according to him, the said
house was owned by Mujeeb Rahman.K, Kalody House.
21. PW9, the CPO, who recorded the statement of PW1,
testified that that while she was working as the CPO in
Kalpakanchery PS, at 12 noon on 21.09.2015, she had recorded

CNR : KLHC010935842025
Crl.A. No. 2087 of 2025
20
2026:KER:67823
the statement of PW1 .Thereafter she produced her before the
District Hospital Tirur for medical examination and she submitted
the medical examination report to the investigation officer. In
cross examination she admitted that PW2 was present while
taking the statement of PW1.
22. PW10, examined in this case is the doctor who
examined PW1. Her evidence is that on 21.09.2015 while she was
working as the Gynecologist Doctor in District Hospital Tirur, as
per the request of the police at Kalpakanchery Police station, she
had examined the victim girl aged 10 years, who had been
produced before her at 6:30 PM accompanied by WCPO 4237
Sathi and her guardian, with the consent of the guardian of the
victim. The history of sexual assault was stated by the child as “a
neighbor Rijas K.P committed rape on several times for two years
and most recent incident was on 14.09.2015 time was at morning,
place was in the home. She gave the history of penetration into
the vulva”. On examination there ware no physical injuries, no
genital injuries, swab and smear were taken. She had referred the
child to Medical College Calicut for expert opinion. After
examination she had issued the certificate which got identified by
her as Ext.P8.

CNR : KLHC010935842025
Crl.A. No. 2087 of 2025
21
2026:KER:67823
23. PW13, the doctor at the Medical College Hospital
Kozhikode, who had examined PW1, testified that during 2015
while she was working as the Assistant Professor of Govt. Medical
college Kozhikode she had examined the survivor in this case at
6 PM on 22.09.2015, at the request of the CI of police Valanchery
Police station. The alleged history stated by police was that
neighbour Rijas raped her. The victim also stated the history in the
same line. On physical examination and local examination all were
normal, no injuries, hymen intact, foarchette and posterior
commissure intact. Vaginal examination could not done due to
pain to the victim. Vaginal smears and swabs were taken. Final
opinion noted in Ext.P8 that she could say after receiving pending
analysis report. The certificate issued by her got identified as
Ext.P11.
24. PW14, the SI of police Kalpakanchery Police station
deposed that on 21.09.2015 while he was working as the SI of
police in Kalpakanchery PS, he had registered Ext.P12 FIR based
on Ext.P1 complaint of PW1 submitted before him by PW2, PW3,
CW6 (PW16) and CW8 together and the investigation was
conducted by PW18.
25. PW15, the doctor who had examined the accused, and

CNR : KLHC010935842025
Crl.A. No. 2087 of 2025
22
2026:KER:67823
issued Ext.P13 certificate of potency stating that the above person
was incapable of performing sexual act, testified so in support of
the prosecution.
26. PW16, the Child Line Co-ordinator, deposed that during
2015, while he was working as the Child Line Coordinator
Malappuram, on 20.09.2015 he got an information through Toll
Free number 1098, that the victim wanted to get a counseling.
Thus the Child Line team members Rashid and Siji went to the
residence of the child in Randathani and gave counseling to her.
From the counseling they revealed that the victim was subjected
sexual assault on several time by a neighbour named Rijas. This
incident was informed to her as the coordinator of the institution.
Thereafter he along with the victim, her mother and younger
sister of her mother and Child Line member Rashid went to the
police station and gave intimation to the police.
27. PW18, the CI of police, who investigated the case,
deposed that while he was working as the CI of police Valanchery
on 21.09.2015 took the investigation of this case. On that day at
12 noon he visited the place of occurrence. He prepared Ext.P4
mahazar pertaining to the place of occurrence as shown by PW1.
The place of occurrence was at the bedroom of the house

CNR : KLHC010935842025
Crl.A. No. 2087 of 2025
23
2026:KER:67823
No:20/227 of Marakkara Grama Panchayath at the north of a mud
road proceeding from the Chathaparamb Harijan Colony at
Randathani. On that day at 12:30 PM he had seized the dress
worn by the victim at the time of incident as per Ext.P5. He then
produced the same before the court as per Ext.P15 property list.
He identified MO1 to MO3 items of dress. The said items were
forwarded to Forensic lab for chemical examination along with
forwarding note which got identified as Ext.P16. On 22.09.2015 at
10AM he seized Ext.P3 letter produced by CW6 (PW16) as per
Ext.P9 seizure mahzar and the same was forwarded to the court in
form No:15 which got identified as Ext.P17. PW1 was produced for
medical examination before PW10 and PW13 and obtained the
medical certificates as per Ext.P8 and Ext.P11 on 11.11.2015,.
The accused who surrendered before the District Court Manjeri
was taken into police custody then produced for potency
examination on 11.11.2015 and obtained the examination report
as per Ext.P13. The sketch of the place of occurrence was
obtained from PW7 and the ownership certificate was obtained
from PW8. The above documents were identified by him before
court as per Ext.P6 and P7. The forensic report got identified by
him as Ext.P18.

CNR : KLHC010935842025
Crl.A. No. 2087 of 2025
24
2026:KER:67823
28. Here the main contention raised by the learned Senior
Counsel is by stressing the improbability of the prosecution case
and according to him, earlier, the allegation was that on
14.09.2015 and two years prior to that, the accused sexually
abused her. Thereafter, the period was reduced for 20 days prior
to 14.09.2015 and on 14.09.2015. In fact, this challenge is of no
much significance, since PW1 had a consistent case that as on
14.09.2015, she was subjected to penetrative sexual assault, by
the accused, despite doing the same 20 days prior to 14.09.2015.
In fact, commission of sexual intercourse on 14.09.2015 alone is
sufficient to find penetrative sexual assault, though the other days
prior to 14.09.2015 would have impact to find commission of
repeated penetrative sexual assault by the accused.
29. In this case, Ext.P3 is very relevant. Ext.P3 is a letter
written and kept at the bag of the victim by herself with a warning
to the accused, though the same would not show overt acts of the
accused in detail. At the same time, Ext.P3 would give an
inference that the accused had subjected PW1 to sexual overtures
and she was aggrieved of the same. It is pertinent to note that
PW2, the foster mother, when verified the bag took the same on
the very next day, and accordingly, the crime was registered. Be

CNR : KLHC010935842025
Crl.A. No. 2087 of 2025
25
2026:KER:67823
it so, Ext.P3 is a valid piece of evidence to show that after the
occurrence on 14.09.2015, the victim was forced to write Ext.P3.
It is true that in Exts.P8 and P11, the signs of penetrative sexual
assault not found by the doctors. In this connection, the learned
Senior Counsel also conceded that penetration, even in, slightest
degree without rupture of hymen on the vaginal orifice including
vulva would suffice the requirement of penetration. Here PW1
categorically deposed penetration of the penis of the accused to
her vagina. In such view of the matter, this contention also would
not yield.
30. Addressing the contention raised by the learned Senior
Counsel, the question arises is, whether the evidence of PW1 is of
sterling quality to be acted upon, in the absence of medical
evidence ? In this regard, the legal position argued by the learned
Senior Counsel relying on the decision in Rai Sandeep (supra) is
not in dispute. In this decision, precisely, the Apex Court held that
“ the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime
should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely,
oral, documentary and material objects should match the said
version in material particulars in order to enable the Court trying
the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other

CNR : KLHC010935842025
Crl.A. No. 2087 of 2025
26
2026:KER:67823
supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge
alleged.” At the same time, trivial omissions or inconsistencies in
the evidence of a child witness would not be reckoned to treat the
child witness as not a witness of sterling quality. When the over all
evidence given by a minor witness, a victim of sexual molestation
would inspire the confidence of the court, the child witness to be
treated as a witness of sterling quality.
31. In the instant case, the evidence of PW1, extracted in
detail, supported by the other evidence would show that PW1 is a
witness of sterling quality and what she had deposed regarding
the repeated sexual molestation at the hands of the
appellant/accused to be held as true and correct. Thus on re-
appreciation of evidence, this court cannot find that the evidence
given by PW1 is having anything to indicate false implication or
untruth, to call herself as a witness of not sterling quality.
Therefore, none of the contentions raised by the learned Senior
Counsel for the appellant/accused to be found in his favour. The
necessary consequence is that the conviction entered into by the
learned Special Judge is liable to confirmed.
32. Coming to the sentence, three years is the maximum
sentence imposed upon the accused for the offence punishable

CNR : KLHC010935842025
Crl.A. No. 2087 of 2025
27
2026:KER:67823
under Section 450 of the IPC, two years is the maximum sentence
imposed upon the accused for the offence punishable under
Section 506 of the IPC and ten years is the maximum sentence
imposed upon the accused for the offences punishable under
Section 6 read with 5(m) of the POCSO Act. Considering the
gravity of offences found to be committed by the
appellant/accused, the sentence also found to be reasonable and
reduction in sentence also cannot be considered. Accordingly, the
verdict impugned does not require any interference and in such
view of the matter, this appeal must fail.
33. In the result, this criminal appeal stands dismissed. The
conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant/accused
stand confirmed. All interlocutory applications pending in this
appeal stand dismissed.
Since the accused is in jail, the Registry is directed to
forward a copy of this judgment to the Jail Superintendent and the
Special Court concerned, for information and compliance.
SD/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
DCS