Mere Failure To Sign First Information Statement Not Fatal If Informant Supports Prosecution Case Before Court: Kerala High Court Upholds POCSO Conviction
The Court held that the omission to obtain informant’s signature on FIS cannot by itself discredit prosecution when victim affirms contents during evidence.
Justice A. Badharudeen, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that the mere absence of the informant’s signature on a First Information Statement (FIS) is not sufficient to disbelieve the prosecution case where the informant, while deposing before the Court, admits and supports the contents of the statement. Upholding the conviction of an accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), the Court observed that such an omission does not render the FIS inadmissible when the prosecution evidence otherwise remains consistent and credible.
The Court further held that minor procedural irregularities or alleged omissions cannot outweigh cogent testimony of the victim supported by surrounding evidence. It found that the victim’s deposition, corroborative documentary material, recovery evidence, counselling records, and school documents proving age collectively established the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed, “…the mere failure or omission on the part of the informant to put signature in the FIS is not a reason to disbelieve the FIS or the entire prosecution case, when the informant while giving evidence admits and supports the case of the prosecution in tune with the statement in the form of first information given by the informant. Here PW13, the victim had given candid evidence supporting the prosecution case after admitting lodging of FIS (Ext.P8), that too, in terms of the said statement inclusive of Ext.P11 statement given before the Magistrate…”.
The prosecution case alleged that the accused, a neighbour of the 11-year-old victim, lured her to his residence during the 2017 summer vacation on the pretext of giving her toffy and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault. The victim later disclosed the incident to an Anganwadi teacher, following which counselling intervention and police action commenced.
The Special Court under the POCSO Act, Palakkad, convicted the accused under Section 5(m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376(2) IPC, sentencing him to 15 years’ rigorous imprisonment and imposing a fine of ₹25,000.
Therefore, challenging the conviction before the High Court, the accused argued, among other things, that the FIS was unreliable because neither the victim nor her mother had signed it.
Rejecting the contention, the High Court held that omission to obtain signatures on the FIS would not invalidate the prosecution where the victim later admitted lodging the statement and deposed consistently in line with it.
The Court noted that the victim’s evidence remained trustworthy and materially unshaken during cross-examination. It also rejected challenges regarding proof of age, place of occurrence, delay in reporting, and alleged procedural non-compliance under the POCSO Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal and directed the Special Court to ensure execution of the sentence.
Cause Title: Rahiman v. State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:34071)
Appearances:
Appellant: Rohit Baben, Sreeraj R Advocates.
Respondent: Renjith George, Senior Public Prosecutor.