Omission of informant's signature in First Information Statement does not invalidate prosecution if testimony remains credible.

The appellant was convicted by the Special Court (POCSO), Palakkad, for aggravated penetrative sexual assault of an 11-year-old victim

The prosecution alleged that in 2017, the accused lured the victim to his house with candy and committed the offense

The matter came to light via school counseling sessions conducted by PW18

The appellant challenged the conviction on grounds of an unsigned First Information Statement (FIS), lack of age proof, site discrepancies, and delay in reporting

1. Whether the Special Judge was correct in holding that the accused committed the offense punishable under Section 5(m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act?

2. Whether the lack of a signature by the informant/mother on the FIS (Ext.P8) renders it inadmissible or fatal to the prosecution case?

3. Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the age of the victim and the place of occurrence?

The court primarily applied Section 5(m) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376(2)(n) (referred to as 376(2)(i) in judgment) of the IPC regarding sexual assault on a minor

Procedurally, the court applied Section 42 of the POCSO Act to avoid double sentencing for the same act

Regarding evidence, the court clarified that the mere omission of a signature on a First Information Statement does not invalidate the document if the informant later affirms the statement's contents in court

It further emphasized that age determination under the POCSO Act can be established via school admission records (Ext.P10) as per statutory preference

The High Court dismissed the appellant’s technical objections by prioritizing substantive evidence over procedural irregularities.

Regarding the unsigned FIS, the court reasoned that since the victim (PW13) testified consistently with Ext.P8 in court, the lack of a signature was of no serious consequence

On the issue of age, the court found the testimony of the School Headmaster (PW3) and the admission register (Ext.P10/P2) demonstrating a birth date of 01.06.2006 to be conclusive proof of the victim's minor status

The court corroborated the victim's testimony with the evidence of the counselor (PW18), who detailed the disclosure process, and the medical officer (PW14), who confirmed the appellant's potency

The site of the offense was sufficiently established through the scene mahazar (Ext.P4) and the testimony of the house owner (PW7)

The High Court upheld the conviction and the 15-year rigorous imprisonment sentence, finding the evidence of the victim (PW13) to be credible and corroborated. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence imposed by the Special Court was confirmed