Kerala HC Upholds 20-Year Sentence For Relative Who Assaulted 14-Year-Old, With DNA Confirming He Fathered Her Child

The appellant was prosecuted for sexually assaulting his 14-year-old relative in December 2020.

She later gave birth to a child, and DNA testing identified the appellant as the child’s biological father.

The Special Court convicted him under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(3) of the IPC and Sections 3(a) read with 4(2), and 5(j)(ii), 5(n) and 5(p) read with 6 of the POCSO Act; it imposed concurrent terms of 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment for the POCSO offences, fines, and consecutive default sentences.

The appellant challenged the conviction and sentence, disputing the timing and cause of the pregnancy, the DNA evidence, and reliance on an alleged extra-judicial confession.

The Court applied Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(3) IPC and Sections 3(a), 4(2), 5(j)(ii), 5(n), 5(p) and 6 of the POCSO Act to the alleged penetrative sexual assault of a child and its aggravated forms.

It considered the POCSO Act’s presumption under Section 29 in the context of the defence challenge to the prosecution case, as addressed by the Special Court.

DNA evidence is expert opinion evidence whose probative value depends on the case; the Court cited Pattu Rajan v. State of T.N. and Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) on its evidentiary weight and acceptance where sampling is proper and tampering is not shown.

An extra-judicial confession may be relied on if voluntary, truthful and credible, though it is ordinarily treated with caution and assessed with the other evidence.

Section 42 of the POCSO Act was applied to explain why no separate sentences were imposed for the IPC offences.

The victim’s account of the assault was found credible and remained materially unshaken in cross-examination; her age as a child was established through documentary evidence and was not disputed on appeal.

Medical evidence established the pregnancy and delivery, while the DNA report identified the appellant as the child’s biological father.

The Court rejected the argument that intercourse in the last week of December could not have caused the pregnancy: the doctor’s evidence did not rule out conception at that time.

It also rejected the challenge to the DNA report, observing that the report had been admitted without objection and that the victim’s evidence was independently sufficient; the confession evidence was treated as corroborative, not as the sole basis for conviction.

It dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence: concurrent 20-year terms of rigorous imprisonment and fines of ₹10,000 for each of the four POCSO offences, with default sentences running consecutively; no separate sentences were imposed for the IPC offences under Section 42 of the POCSO Act.

The judgment directed that any fine recovered be paid to the victim as compensation and allowed set-off under Section 428 CrPC.