Kerala High Court upholds 25-year POCSO sentences for four accused in repeated sexual assaults on minor girl

The appeals arose from the judgment dated 18 October 2024 in S.C. No. 1581 of 2018 passed by the Fast Track Special Court, Kattakkada.

The appellants were accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Crime No. 1036 of 2017 registered by Vilappilsala Police Station.

The prosecution alleged that the accused, acting in furtherance of their common intention and with the object of procuring money, subjected PW1, a minor girl belonging to a Scheduled Caste community, to repeated rape and penetrative sexual assault at different residences between 2015 and 2017.

The prosecution examined 36 witnesses and marked Exhibits P1 to P58 and Material Objects MO1 to MO13.

The Special Court convicted all four accused under Sections 366A, 376(1) and 376D read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 4 read with 3(a), 6 read with 5(g), and 17 read with 16 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”).

1. Whether the Special Court was justified in finding the accused guilty under Section 366A read with Section 34 IPC.

2. Whether the accused were guilty under Section 376(1) read with Section 34 IPC.

3. Whether the ingredients of Section 376D read with Section 34 IPC were established.

4. Whether the prosecution proved the offence of penetrative sexual assault under Section 4 read with Section 3(a) of the POCSO Act.

5. Whether the aggravated penetrative sexual assault provision under Section 6 read with Section 5(g) of the POCSO Act was attracted.

6. Whether the accused were liable for abetment under Section 17 read with Section 16 of the POCSO Act.

7. Whether the conviction and sentence required appellate interference.

The Court applied Section 366A IPC concerning inducement or procurement of a minor girl for illicit intercourse, Sections 376(1) and 376D IPC concerning rape and gang rape, and Section 34 IPC concerning acts done in furtherance of common intention.

Under the POCSO Act, Section 3(a) defines penetrative sexual assault, Section 4 prescribes its punishment, Section 5(g) concerns aggravated penetrative sexual assault by a person acting jointly with others, Section 6 prescribes the aggravated punishment, and Sections 16 and 17 address abetment and its punishment.

The Court also applied Section 42 of the POCSO Act, under which no separate sentence was imposed for the corresponding IPC offences, and Section 71 IPC relating to limitation on multiple punishments for the same act.

The governing evidentiary principle was that, in sexual-offence cases, the testimony of the victim alone may sustain a conviction if it is wholly reliable and of sterling quality.

The Court further relied on the statutory framework concerning compensation under Section 357 CrPC, Section 33(8) of the POCSO Act and Rule 9(2) of the POCSO Rules, 2020.

The High Court found PW1’s evidence to be wholly reliable and of sterling quality.

Her account described repeated sexual assaults by the accused and was consistent with her statement under Section 164 CrPC and the surrounding circumstances.

The Court held that the fact that PW12 and certain other witnesses turned hostile did not, by itself, discredit PW1’s testimony.

The evidence of PW3 and PW10, along with the testimony of PWs 4 to 6, supported the circumstances concerning PW1’s movements, the accused’s residences and their association with her.

The Court also noted the potency evidence concerning accused No. 3, including the medical certificate stating that there was nothing to suggest that he was incapable of performing a sexual act.

The defence arguments concerning PW1’s relationship with Vishnu Sagar, the initial registration of another crime, alleged contradictions, and uncertainty regarding the places of occurrence were rejected.

The Court held that these matters did not outweigh the direct and consistent testimony of PW1 or create a reasonable doubt sufficient to disturb the concurrent factual findings of the Special Court.

On reappreciation of the evidence, the Court concluded that the prosecution had established the offences under the IPC and the POCSO Act, including the common-intention and abetment allegations, to the required standard.

It found no ground to interfere with the sentence of five years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 366A IPC and twenty-five years’ rigorous imprisonment under Sections 6 and 17 of the POCSO Act, with the substantive sentences running concurrently.

All four appeals were dismissed, the conviction and sentence were confirmed, and the Registry was directed to forward a copy of the judgment to the Special Court for information and further steps.