Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

A Fast Track Special Court in Kerala’s Thiruvananthapuram has sentenced a 63 year old man to rigorous imprisonment for 102 years and fined Rupees 1.05 lakh for sexually assaulting his five-year-old relative, repeatedly. Special Judge Rekha R. convicted the accused of multiple offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The prosecution, led by Special Public Prosecutor Vijay Mohan R.S., presented evidence that the girl was sexually abused on three occasions between November 2020 and February 2021. The accused, the brother of the child's maternal grandfather, committed penetrative sexual assault and sexual assault on different occasions, at his residence after making her sit on his lap while she had gone to his house for playing. He also threatened the victim to maintain silence. It was revealed that the victim regularly visited the accused's house on Sundays to play with his grandchildren. On these days, the accused would attend church and have breakfast before leaving for work on the fishing net.

The abuse came to light when the girl's grandmother grew suspicious after overhearing her conversations with friends about the accused. The girl eventually revealed the incidents to her grandmother, leading the family to alert the police and seek medical attention. Thereafter, the police registered the case.

The accused, represented by Advocate Kovalam.B.Ajithkumar, denied all allegations against him contending that he was being falsely implicated. The accused further argued that the case against him was not made out as the prosecution failed to state the exact dates of the incident. Furthermore, the complaint was lodged in the name of a different person, the case being one of mistaken identity. Additionally, it was argued that the medical evidence did not reveal that the hymen of the victim was torn. Though there was congestion around the private part of the victim, it could be attributed to playful activities, the accused alleged.

The medical examiner deposed that “hymen would not be torn if the penetration was slight” and it was further stated that there was reddishness around the hymen.

The court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence presented before it, rejected the arguments put forth by the defence regarding the non specification of exact dates, stating that the victim, “who was only 5 years old was not expected to give time line in mathematical precision. Even if there is mistake in the time line stated by PW1 (victim), that cannot be considered as a ground to doubt her testimony.”

It was argued that the victim stated that her mother (PW2) did not accompany her to the police station, hospital, or Magistrate. The defence claimed this was because the mother knew the accused was falsely implicated. The court also rejected this contention, observing that, “The mere fact that PW2 did not accompany PW1 to the hospital, police station and to the Magistrate is no ground to conclude that accused was falsely implicated in this case.”

The court, upon evaluating the entire evidence, concluded that the prosecution successfully proved that the accused committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault, rape, and aggravated sexual assault against the victim on three occasions at his residence when the victim was 5 years old or younger. The prosecution also proved that the accused was guilty of offences under Sections 376(2)(f), 376(2)(n), and 376AB of IPC, along with Sections 4(2) read with 3(b), 6 read with 5(l), 6 read with 5(m), 6 read with 5(n), 10 read with 9(l), 10 read with 9(m), and 10 read with 9(n) of the POCSO Act. All ten points were decided in favour of the prosecution.

The court sentenced the accused to 102 years in prison along with the fine to be paid to the survivor as compensation, stating that “The sentence should deter the criminal from achieving the avowed object to break the law and the endeavour should be to impose an appropriate sentence. It is the duty of the court to see that appropriate sentence is imposed regard being had to the commission of the crime and its impact on the social order and that sentencing includes adequate punishment.”

 

Cause Title: xxxxxxxxxx v State of Kerala