Relative who repeatedly sexually assaulted a 12-year-old has 20-year sentence upheld, Kerala High Court rules

The appellant was convicted by the Special Court for offences arising from repeated sexual assaults on the 12-year-old victim, including penetrative assaults in November 2021 and further incidents in December 2021.

The prosecution relied principally on the victim’s testimony, supported by medical evidence and testimony from family members and other witnesses.

The Special Court imposed concurrent sentences, including 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment for specified aggravated penetrative sexual assault offences.

The appellant challenged the conviction and sentence under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, contending that material omissions and variations in the victim’s statements undermined her credibility.

Whether the victim’s testimony, despite alleged omissions and variations in her prior statements, was reliable and sufficient to sustain the convictions.

Whether the evidence justified the findings of guilt for the IPC and POCSO Act offences affirmed by the Special Court.

Whether the convictions or sentences warranted appellate interference.

The Court considered the charged offences under Sections 450, 363, 376(2)(n), 376(2)(f) and 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code, and the corresponding offences under Sections 4(2) read with 3(b) and 3(d), 6(1) read with 5(l) and 5(n), and 10 read with 9(l) of the POCSO Act, as well as Section 8 read with Section 7 of that Act.

It applied the principle that the victim’s testimony in a sexual-offence case may alone sustain a conviction if it is of sterling quality; corroboration may support, but is not an indispensable condition for, reliance on such testimony.

It also noted that Section 42 of the POCSO Act governed the treatment of corresponding IPC and POCSO offences, and that the minimum statutory sentences could not be reduced.

The Court distinguished Royson v. State of Kerala, holding that its concern with suppression of material facts in an informant’s first information statement did not apply because the victim was not the informant here.

The Court found the victim’s account of repeated assaults consistent with her Section 164 CrPC statement and supported by the medical evidence, including the doctor’s finding of old hymenal tears and an opinion suggestive of penetrative sexual assault.

It treated the parents’ evidence as hearsay, based on what the victim had told them, and held that their failure to recount every detail in the first information statement or police statements did not undermine her direct testimony.

Finding the victim’s evidence credible and of sterling quality, and rejecting the appellant’s reliance on Royson, the Court upheld the Special Court’s findings of guilt.

It further held that the imposed 20-year terms were statutory minimum sentences and therefore not reducible.

The appeal was dismissed, the conviction and sentence were confirmed, and the Registry was directed to forward the judgment to the Jail Superintendent and the Special Court for information and compliance.