1. This appeal is at the instance of the sole accused in S.C.No.210/2023 on the files of the Special Court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, ‘the PoCSO Act’ hereinafter), Fast Track Court No.I, Perinthalmanna, arising out of Crime No.858/2020 of Perinthalmanna Police Station, Malappuram.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/ accused as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the records.

3. Here, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 366, 376(1) and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’ hereinafter) as well as under Sections 6(1) r/w 5(j) (ii) and Sections 12 r/w 11(iv) and 11(vi) of the PoCSO Act, by the accused.

 4. The case of the prosecution is that the accused made some acquaintance with the victim, who was aged 16 years and on 06.03.2020, she was taken to a house situated in Malappuram on the premise of getting consent from his sister for the marriage and thereafter, he had committed forceful sexual intercourse and aggravated sexual assault on the victim. In turn, the victim gave birth to a child.

5. The Special Court took cognizance of the matter and proceeded with trial. During trial, PW1 to PW21 were examined and Exts.P1 to P29 were marked on the side of the prosecution. No defence evidence was adduced.

6. After appreciation of evidence, the Special Court found that the appellant/accused committed offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376(1) of the IPC as well as Sections 6(1) and 12 of the PoCSO Act, and sentenced as under:

                  “In the result,

                  (1) The convict is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of ₹ 25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand only) for the offence punishable under section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of the fine he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months.

                  (2) The convict is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 40 years and to pay a fine of ₹1,75,000/- (Rupees one lakhs seventy-five thousand only) for the offence punishable under section 6(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. In default of payment of the fine, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year.

                  (3) The convict is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine of ₹5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) for the offence punishable under section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. In default of payment of the fine, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two months.

                  (4) The fine amount if realized, the same shall be paid as compensation to the survivor (PW1) under section 357(1) of Cr.P.C.

                  (5) The substantive sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently.

                  (6) The convict is entitled to set off for the period (420 days) he had undergone as an under-trial prisoner and not as a convict.

                  (7) To ensure proper rehabilitation of the survivor the District Legal Service Authority is requested to award adequate compensation to the survivor.”

7. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused vehemently argued that, going by the prosecution case and the evidence available, the acquaintance between the victim and the accused to be found which emerged while she was travelling in a bus. Further, this cordial relationship and subsequent events led to the commission of the offences. According to him, at the time of the occurrence, the victim was aged 16 years and, therefore, this aspect may also be taken into consideration while appreciating the evidence. He also submitted that on an evaluation of the evidence available on record, the same is insufficient to prove commission of the offences by the appellant/accused beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the appellant/accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt and consequent acquittal, after setting aside the verdict impugned.

8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, including that of the victim, who was examined as PW1, is sufficient to prove the allegations against the appellant/accused beyond reasonable doubt. According to him, the age of the victim was 16 years at the time of the occurrence and her acquaintance or alleged consent, as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused, are of no significance and have no bearing on the verdict.

9. Adverting to the rival arguments, the points arise for consideration are;

                  (i) Whether the Special Court was right in holding that the appellant/accused committed offence punishable under Section 366 of the IPC?

                  (ii) Whether the Special Court was right in holding that the appellant/accused  committed  offence punishable under Section 376(1) of the IPC?

                  (iii) Whether the Special Court was right in holding that the appellant/accused committed offence punishable under Section 6(1) of the PoCSO Act?

                  (iv) Whether the Special Court was right in holding that the appellant/accused committed offence punishable under Section 12 of the PoCSO Act?

                  (v) Whether the verdict would require interference?

                  (vi) The order to be passed?

Point Nos.(i) to (vi)

10. In the instant case, the crucial evidence relied on by the Special Court, apart from the other evidence on record, consists of the testimony of PW1 and PW19, who issued Ext.P21 report, which reveals that the child was born consequent to the sexual intercourse between PW1 and the accused. Ext.P21 report further establishes that the accused is the biological father of the child born to PW1. Here, Ext.P11 is the matriculation certificate of PW1 tendered in evidence, which shows that her date of birth is 23.01.2004. No challenge was raised with regard to the said aspect. Ext.P11 matriculation certificate is also a relevant document for determining the age of the victim in a PoCSO case, as held by the Apex Court in the decision in P.Yuvaprakash v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police reported in [AIR 2023 SC 3525]. Therefore, the prosecution has proved that the victim was below 18 years of age at the time of occurrence and consequently, it was found that the victim was a child within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the PoCSO Act, at the time of occurrence.

11. PW1, the victim, deposed that while she was studying in the 11th standard, she routinely commuted by a bus named "Senapathi" from school to her home, in which the accused was employed. Subsequently, they came into contact with each other, and the accused shared his mobile phone number with PW1. Thereafter, they communicated regularly over the phone, during which the accused promised to marry her. PW1 further deposed that, in February or March, 2020, she visited her school to collect her hall ticket and, while returning home, she alighted from the bus at Angadipuram as demanded by the accused. The accused informed her that the consent of his sister was necessary for their marriage and, under the pretext of taking her to meet his sister, led her to a house situated in a secluded area in Malappuram. The house was located in a remote place and its front door was found locked. PW1 stated that the accused was in possession of the key and assured her that his sister would arrive shortly. Believing his representation, she accompanied him into the house after he unlocked the door. According to PW1, the accused thereafter took her to a bedroom, removed her dress and removed his dress and repeatedly penetrated his penis into her vagina. When she cried, the accused covered her mouth with his hands in order  to  suppress  the  same.  PW1  further deposed that she sustained bleeding from her vagina. The accused also threatened that, if she would disclose the incident to anybody, he would do away with her father. That apart, the accused took photographs of PW1 using his mobile phone. PW1 deposed that, due to fear, she did not disclose the incident to anyone. After reaching home, she sent a message to the accused, but he blocked her number. When she missed her menstrual period during the relevant month, she attempted to contact the accused over the phone, but he had switched off his mobile phone. After about two or three months, the accused unblocked her number, whereupon she informed him that she suspected pregnancy. Then the accused reiterated his promise to marry her. PW1 further deposed that her pregnancy became visible through physical changes and enlargement of her abdomen. When her father questioned her regarding the same, she had divulged the entire incident to him. Thereafter, when inquiries were made about the accused, it was revealed that he was already married. PW1 further stated that she  thereafter shifted her residence to the house of her aunt. On one occasion, she fainted and the incident was communicated to the accused. In response, the accused sent his brother to her residence. Accompanied by her mother, PW1 proceeded to the hospital in an autorickshaw arranged by the accused's brother. At the hospital, they met the accused, who obtained an outpatient ticket and facilitated her consultation with the doctor. The doctor confirmed her pregnancy and advised administration of an injection. While waiting for the injection, PW1 came to know from a nurse that the injection was intended to terminate her pregnancy. Consequently, she declined further treatment and returned home. PW1 further deposed that she thereafter disclosed the entire incident to her relatives and was taken to the One Stop Centre. The police recorded her statement therefrom and she was subsequently taken for medical examination. After examination, the doctor informed her that she was carrying a pregnancy of seven months. PW1 ultimately gave birth to a child on 31.10.2021. PW1 identified the First Information Statement given by her to the police, which was marked as Ext.P1. The relevant portions of her statement recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were marked as Exts.P2, P2(a) to P2(g). PW1 also identified the accused present before the Court as the person who had committed the overt acts stated by her.

12. The doctor, who had examined PW1 deposed about medical examination. He further deposed that he had collected the blood sample of the accused and that the same was duly sealed. PW5 also deposed that the sealed blood sample was entrusted to him and that he, in turn, handed over the same to the Investigating Officer.

13. The Medical Officer at the Medical College, Calicut, who was examined as PW12 deposed that on 02.11.2020, she had collected the blood sample of the child born to PW1 for DNA examination. She further deposed that the sample was duly sealed and handed over to PW6. During cross-examination, PW12 maintained that she had collected the blood sample and a preservative was added therein to preserve the same. PW6 deposed that the blood sample collected by PW12 was entrusted to him and that he, in turn, handed over the same to the Investigating Officer.

14. The doctor attached to the District Hospital, Perinthalmanna, examined as PW13 deposed that she had examined PW1 on 23.09.2020. On physical examination, she found that the hymen of PW1 was torn and that it was an old tear. On abdominal examination, PW13 found that PW1 was pregnant and that the gestational age of the foetus was approximately 32 weeks. The evidence of PW13 also established that PW1 was pregnant, which fact was scientifically proved by the prosecution. Supporting this evidence, PW20, the Investigating Officer, deposed that the blood samples had been forwarded to the laboratory for DNA profiling and that a copy of the forwarding note had been marked as Ext.P27.

15. In addition to that, PW19, the Scientific Officer attached to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Thrissur, deposed that she had received the material objects in three sealed packets. She further deposed that Item No.1 was the blood sample of PW1, Item No.5 was the blood sample of the accused and Item No.9 was the blood sample of the child. PW19 deposed that she had compared the DNA profiles and concluded that the accused was the biological father of the child. The report issued by her was marked as Ext.P21. During cross-examination, PW19 deposed that she had taken fifteen months to complete the analysis for want of time. She further deposed that there were several methods of DNA extraction and that all such methods were accurate. In fact, these crucial evidence not at all shaken during cross-examination.

16. On a scanning of the evidence discussed hereinabove, it is emphatically clear that the evidence tendered by PW1, the victim, satisfactorily proved the aggravated sexual assault and rape committed by the accused on her as the said evidence is wholly reliable, and the same is fortified by the other evidence, including the testimonies of PW19, PW20 and PW21, as well as the remaining evidence on record. If so, the ingredients constituting the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376(1) of the IPC as well as Sections 6(1) and 12 of the PoCSO Act stand established by the evidence available on record, beyond reasonable doubts and therefore, the learned Special Judge was justified in finding that the accused committed the aforesaid offences. Accordingly, the conviction entered against the appellant/accused for the aforesaid offences, is confirmed.

17. In fact, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that considering the age of the victim as 16 years a consensual relationship to be found, cannot be appreciated, as the victim was proved to be a child under the PoCSo Act at the time of occurrence, where consent is of no relevance at all. Similarly, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that the prosecution failed to prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt also cannot be countenanced on re-appreciation of evidence.

18. Coming to the sentence, the sentence imposed by the learned Special Judge is very reasonable on the facts elicited and thus, the same does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the appellant/accused for the aforesaid offences, is also confirmed.

                  In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

                  There shall be a direction to the Special Court to proceed against the appellant/accused by coercive steps for executing the sentence, without fail.

Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Special Court, forthwith.