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

In brief

The question

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?

The court held

The court held that the procedural non-compliance with signatures on the FIS does not vitiate the trial when the oral testimony is "candid"

It also directed

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

01Facts

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

pp. 2-3

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

p. 3

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

p. 14

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

pp. 4-5

02Issues

i.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?

p. 6, para 8

ii.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?

p. 12, para 15

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

pp. 10, para 13-14

03Law Applied

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

p. 2, 17

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

p. 3

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

p. 12

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

p. 13

04Reasoning

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

p. 12

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

p. 12

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

p. 10, 13

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

pp. 13-14

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

pp. 10-11