Victim Narrated All Occurrence In Detail & Same Isn’t Shaken: Kerala High Court Upholds POCSO Conviction

The appeal before the High Court was filed by a sole accused under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed upon him.

The Single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen held, “On reading the evidence given by PW1 during chief-examination, she had narrated all the occurrence in detail and during cross-examination she reiterated the overt acts done by the accused on her on various dates during 2021 and the same is not at all shaken. But, the quality of her evidence was challenged on the ground that she is not a sterling witness, as she deposed about the property dispute between her family and the father of the accused and the person now resides at the house of the accused. In fact, the same is absolutely insufficient to disbelieve the version of PW1 relied on by the Special Court to found commission of the offences by the accused.”

Advocate S. Dheerendrakumar represented the Appellant while Senior Public Prosecutor Vipin Narayan. A represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The prosecution alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 376, 376(3) and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 4 read with 3(a) and 3(c), 6 read with 5(l), 5(m) and 5(n), 8 read with 7 and 12 read with 11(iii) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act by the accused. It was alleged that the accused sexually assaulted a 9-yr-old girl, who was his neighbor, on two occasions. The accused had allegedly raped the victim and also threatened her that he would to kill her mother, brother and sister if she would divulge the occurrence. The accused allegedly repeated the overt acts and committed the offences. On appreciation of evidence, the Special Court found that the accused was guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 4 read with 3(a) and 3(c), 6 read with 5(l) and 5(m), 8 read with 7 and 12 read with 11(iii) of the POCSO Act. Accordingly, the accused was convicted for the said offences.

Reasoning

The Bench took note of the evidence of the doctor who stated that the child had revealed the incident to the psychiatrist to whom the child's mother had taken her on account of her behaviour. She had concluded that sexual assault had been committed based on what had been told by the child and the mother.

On a perusal of the evidence of the victim, the Bench noted that she had narrated all the occurrences in detail and during cross-examination, she reiterated the overt acts done by the accused on her on various dates during 2021 and the same was not shaken at all.

The quality of her evidence was challenged on the ground that she was not a sterling witness, as she deposed about the property dispute between her family and the father. On this aspect, the Bench stated, “In fact, the same is absolutely insufficient to disbelieve the version of PW1 relied on by the Special Court to found commission of the offences by the accused. The statement of the accused is that, he had been implicated in this crime due to rivalry on account of his intention to divulge the illicit relationship of PW3 to PW4, also found to be not appreciable in the facts of this case.”

The Bench thus held that the Special Court was right in finding that the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 4 read with 3(a) and 3(c), 6 read with 5(l) and 5(m), 8 read with 7 and 12 read with 11(iii) of the POCSO Act.

Considering that twenty years was the maximum sentence imposed upon the accused for the offence under Section 6 read with 5(l) and 5(m) of the POCSO Act, the Bench noted that the same is the statutory minimum sentence provided for the said offence, and no reduction in sentence was legally permissible. Thus, the Bench dismissed the appeal.

Cause Title: Vishnu @ Unni v. The State Of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:26885)

Click here to read/download Order