Kerala HC Upholds POCSO Conviction, Says Child’s Nearly Three-Year Delay In Reporting Abuse Was Explained By Death Threats And Lack Of Awareness

The appellant was convicted by the Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Karunagappally, for offences under Sections 376(1), 506(i) and 354D(1)(i) of the IPC, and Sections 4(2) read with 3(a), 10 read with 9(l), and 6 read with 5(m) of the POCSO Act.

He was acquitted of offences under Section 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 6 read with 5(l) POCSO Act.

The victim, born on 14 September 2006, testified that the appellant, a family acquaintance, began touching her when she was in the third standard and penetrated her when she was in the fourth standard; she said the abuse continued until the seventh standard and that threats and her lack of understanding delayed disclosure.

The incident came to light through a school counselling process, following which the police registered the case in December 2022.

The appellant appealed against his conviction and sentence, principally challenging the victim’s credibility, the delay in disclosure, and the absence of independent corroboration.

The Court applied the POCSO Act’s definition of a child under Section 2(1)(d), and the offence provisions under Sections 3(a), 4(2), 9(l), 10, 5(m) and 6; it also considered the relevant offences under Sections 376(1), 506(i) and 354D(1)(i) IPC.

The Court stated that a victim’s testimony in a sexual-offence case may, if wholly reliable and of sterling quality, alone sustain a conviction without corroboration.

It further treated delayed disclosure as not necessarily fatal where the circumstances provide a reasonable explanation, including the victim’s age, threats, and lack of awareness of the nature of the conduct.

No specific judicial precedent was cited.

The Court found that the victim’s age was established and undisputed, and assessed her testimony as reliable despite the delay and the omissions identified in cross-examination.

It accepted her explanation that she had not disclosed the abuse earlier because the appellant threatened her and she did not then understand the seriousness of the conduct; the Court considered that explanation reasonable in the circumstances.

The victim’s account was supported in relevant respects by the counselling teacher, the classmate’s mother, the friend who witnessed the incident near the railway bridge, and the medical history recorded during examination.

The absence of injuries was of little significance because the medical examination took place years after the alleged assaults.

On that evidence, the Court rejected the challenge to the convictions.

It considered the POCSO sentences to be statutory minimum sentences and confirmed the sentences imposed.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were confirmed.