1. Judgment dated 06.05.2024 in S.C.No.423/2020 on the files of the Special Court for the trial of offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO Act’), Hosdurg, is under challenge in this appeal filed under Section 415(2) of the the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The appellant herein is the accused in the above case.

2 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the verdict under challenge and the relevant documents.

3 The prosecution case is that, the accused, with sexual intent, sent several messages to the victim, a girl child  aged  13  years,  then  took  her  in  a  car  bearing Reg.No.KL-60-P-6881 in the month of July 2019, and grabbed her breasts and kissed her, from the back seat of the above said car. Thereafter, at about 11.00 pm during night on 08.09.2019,  09.09.2019  and  10.09.2019,  the  accused trespassed upon the residential house of the victim bearing No.E.E.P.XV-476 of Chittarikkal Village, removed her dress, showed obscene video on his mobile phone and insisted her to engage in the sexual acts as seen in the video and then had sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, the accused threatened her that he would publish the video of those sexual acts if she would disclose the incidents to anyone else. Thereby, the accused alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 354(A)(1)(i), 450, 376(2)(n), 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and Sections 6(1) r/w.5(l), 10 r/w. 9(l), 12 r/w.11(iii), 12 r/w.11(iv) and 12 r/w. 11(v) of the POCSO Act.

4. After framing charge for the said offences, the learned Special Judge proceeded with trial and recorded evidence confined to that of PW1 to PW21, Exts.P1 to P45 and MO1 to MO2 on the side of the prosecution. No evidence let in by the accused.

5. On analysis of the evidence, the Special Court found that the accused had committed offences punishable under Sections 354A(1)(i), 450, 376(2)(n), 376(3) of IPC and Sections 6(1) r/w. 5(l), 10 r/w.9(l), 12 r/w.11(iii), 12  r/w.  11(iv)  and  12  r/w.  11(v)  of  the  POCSO  Act.

                  Accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced as under: “In the result, the accused is sentenced -

                  (a) To undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 20 (Twenty) years and to pay fine of ₹50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) for offence punishable under section 376(3) of Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of four months more;

                  (b) To  undergo  Rigorous  Imprisonment  for  20 (Twenty) years and to pay fine of  ₹50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only)  for offence punishable  under Section  6(1) r/w  5(l) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of four months more;

                  (c) To undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 (one) year and to pay fine of ₹5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) for offence punishable under section 354A(1)(i) of Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month more;

                  (d) To undergo Simple Imprisonment for 5 (Five) years and to pay fine of ₹10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) for offence punishable under section 450 of Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of Two months more;

                  (e) To undergo Simple Imprisonment for 5 (Five) years and to pay fine of ₹10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) for offence punishable under section 410 r/w.9(l) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months more;

                  (f) To undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 (one) year and to pay fine of ₹5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) for offence punishable under section 12 r/w.11(iii) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month more;

                  (g) To undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 (one) year and to pay fine of ₹5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) for offence punishable under section 12 r/w.11(iv) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month more;

                  (h) To undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 (one) year and to pay fine of ₹5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) for offence punishable under section 12 r/w.11(v) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month more;

                  (i) The accused is entitled to set off of the period from 02.02.2020 to 08.05.2020 and from 26.08.2023 till this date which he was in custody for the purpose of this case’

                  (j) The substantive sentences of imprisonment awarded for the offences under clauses (a) to (h) above shall run concurrently and the sentences of imprisonment in default of fine shall run consecutively.”

6. While assailing the judgment, the learned counsel for the accused argued that there is delay of five months in lodging the FIR, even though the occurrences spoken by PW1, the victim, occurred on 08.09.2019, 09.09.2019 and 10.09.2019, and prior to that, in the month of July, 2019. Secondly, it is argued that even though PW18, the Doctor, was examined and Ext.P26 was tendered in evidence to prove the medical condition of the victim after the occurrence, the Doctor opined that the hymen was found intact. Therefore, the medical evidence in no way supported any penetrative sexual assault as spoken by PW1. According to him, the victim, aged 13 years, and the accused, who was aged 25 years, at the time of occurrence, were in a good relationship, and thereafter, he was implicated in this crime without any material. According to him, as pointed out, during examination of PW1, the headmistress of the school had noticed the conversation between PW1 and the accused and she in turn informed the same to her uncle, and the uncle made quarrel with the accused and thereafter, this case has been foisted. The learned counsel for the accused argued further that the prosecution evidence is quite insufficient to find commission of the above offences as alleged and therefore, by enlarging benefit of doubts, the accused is liable to be acquitted.

7. As regards the delay in lodging the First Information Report, admittedly lodged on 01.02.2020, it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though the first occurrence was during the month of July, 2019, the remaining occurrences of repeated sexual intercourse happened on 08.09.2019, 09.09.2019 and 10.09.2019. After the last occurrence, there was no relationship between PW1 and the accused till 22.01.2020. It was thereafter, on 22.01.2020, the accused called PW1 insisting her to accompany him. At this juncture, she became gloomy and was taken to PW4, clinical psychologist, for consultation. PW4 and PW5 examined her and she disclosed the sexual overtures at the instance of the accused and in turn, this crime was registered on 01.02.2020. Therefore, there is no substantial delay in lodging the FIR, otherwise, the delay is well explained by the circumstances. It is pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor further that as regards to the absence of medical evidence supporting the prosecution allegations, in paragraph No.20 of the judgment, the learned Special Judge addressed the same and found that the absence of medical evidence is not fatal to the prosecution case. Therefore, the verdict impugned is liable to be confirmed, is the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor.

8 Adverting to the rival submissions, the points arise for consideration are:

                  1) Whether the Special Court went wrong in finding that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 376(3) of the IPC?

                  2) Whether the Special Court went wrong in finding that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 354A(1)(i) of the IPC?

                  3) Whether the Special Court went wrong in finding that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 450 of the IPC?

                  4) Whether the Special Court went wrong in finding that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC?

                  5) Whether the Special Court went wrong in finding that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 6(1) r/w.5(l) of the POCSO Act?

                  6) Whether the Special Court went wrong in finding that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 10 r/w. 9(l) of the POCSO Act?

                  7) Whether the Special Court went wrong in finding that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 12 r/w. 11(iii) of the POCSO Act?

                  8) Whether the Special Court went wrong in finding that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 12 r/w. 11(iv) of the POCSO Act?

                  9) Whether the Special Court went wrong in finding that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 12 r/w. 11(v) of the POCSO Act?

                  10) Whether the judgment impugned would require any interference?

                  11) Order to be passed.

9. Point Nos. 1 to 11 Regarding the status of PW1 as a child, PW1 deposed that she was aged 13 years at the time of occurrence. In order to prove the age of the victim, below 18 years, apart from the evidence of PW1, PW16, the Registrar of Births and Deaths of Cherupuzha Grama Panchayat, was examined and Ext.P24 birth certificate was tendered in evidence to show the date of birth of the victim as 02.04.2006.  In fact, the juvenility of the victim is not a disputed fact.

10. As regards to the occurrence, PW1 deposed further that her mother was working in Bahrin and was separated from her husband. The victim was residing with her maternal grandparents and her sister. She used to go to the high school by walking with her friends. The accused had a workshop near to her school. On 05.04.2019, he had sent a friend request on Facebook to her. She did not accept it at first. Later, he began to send messages to her on Messenger. On her way back home from school, the accused used to take her in his car along with her friends and drop her in front of her house. While so, he began to take her alone in the car. She did not feel anything unusual in his behavior at first. Later, he began to stop the car at isolated places, and come to the back seat and hug and kiss her on her breast. When she objected to it, and pushed him off, he stated that nothing would happen to her. She was using her grandmother's phone at that time. Later, he began to call her over the phone. On 08.09.2019, he had sent a message to her with request that he would come to her home at night. She replied telling him not to come and switched off the phone. At about 11 pm, she heard the sound of knock on her bedroom window. She opened the window and saw the accused. When she asked him to go back, he told her that if he were seen standing outside by the local people, her family members would know it and she would be put in trouble. He compelled and made her to get the door on the kitchen side opened. He entered into her house, hugged her and kissed her. Then he showed her a video of a man and a woman engaging in sex on his mobile phone and told her that they also would do so. When she opposed and told him that she was scared, he told her that she would not have any problem. Then, he forcefully made her to lay on the bed, removed her midi, T-shirt and inners and forcibly had sexual intercourse with her. He left the house at about 2 a.m. On 09.09.2019, the accused came again and knocked the window while she was asleep. She refused to open the door. The accused told her that he was in possession of the video of the sexual intercourse between them on the previous day and threatened her that the said video would be published if she did not open the door. Scared of the same, she opened the door. He entered the room and forcefully committed sexual intercourse with her, as he had done on the previous day. When she told him that she was scared about it, he threatened her that if she would disclose the overt-acts to anyone, he would publish the video. Thereafter, on the night of 10.09.2019 also, he came and knocked on the window and entered the room and committed sexual intercourse with her. According to her, the accused had done sexual intercourse with PW1 while her grandparents and sister were sleeping. She testified further that on 11.09.2019, her aunt, who had gone to her own house, returned home and on that night, her aunt slept at the room in which the victim had slept on the previous days and the victim slept with her grandmother. For a long period after the above occurrences on 08.09.2019, 09.09.2019 and 10.09.2019, she did not have any contact with the accused. While so, on 22.01.2020, the accused called her on her mother's phone and asked her to call back when there would be no one in the house. Later, he told her that she should come out of the house on 01.02.2020, when there would be a procession in connection with the perunnal, and he would be waiting outside in his car. After this, she lost interest in her studies and in taking food. Therefore, she was taken to Maxmind Hospital, Aravanchal. During the counselling conducted by the doctor there, she disclosed the doctor about the repeated sexual assaults committed by the accused on her. The doctor informed her that the matter would be informed to the childline. On 30.01.2020, she was called from the childline office Payyannur and asked whether they should come to her house. She told them that she would go to the childline office and discuss the matter with them. Payyannur Childline passed  the  information  to  the  Childline  Kasaragod  and Officers from Kasaragod Childline came to her house and talked to her. Thereafter, on 01.02.2020, a Women Police officer from Chittarikal police came to her house and recorded her statement. She was taken to District Hospital Kanhangad at about 06.00 pm on that day, where a doctor examined her. She narrated the incident to the doctor. At about 07.30 pm on that day, she was taken to the Magistrate at Kanhangad and the Magistrate recorded her statement. On 02.02.2020, at about 10.30 a.m, she showed the room where the incident had occurred to the police in the presence of her grandparents. On that day, she handed over the midi and T-shirt, which she had worn at the time of incident, to the police. On 05.03.2020, the police showed her the vehicle in which she had been assaulted, which was kept at the police station. She showed the police the seat of the vehicle where she had been assaulted. On 07.03.2020, she showed the places, where the car had stopped and where she had been assaulted, to the police in the presence of her grandfather. It was in July 2019, she had been taken in the car and assaulted for the first time. Although PW1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, in fact, nothing material was elicited to disbelieve her version.

11. The grandmother of the victim was examined as PW2. She deposed that on the evening of a day when the victim was studying in 8th standard, she saw the accused bringing the victim in his car and dropping her in front of her house and she told the victim not to board the car of the accused, as there was a talk in the locality that his conduct was not good. She then called the accused and asked him not to take the victim in the car. There was no issues for about one or two months thereafter. While so, on 22.01.2020, the victim was found to be sleepless, restless, and not interested in food. When she was asked about it, she wept without saying anything. She told her son that the child was showing some restlessness and it might be due to overuse of the phone, and they could take the child to Maxmind Hospital Aravanchal. They took the victim to the said hospital and Dr.Sony spoke with the child and then referred her to counselor Asha.  After the counselling, Dr. Sony called them and told that the child was being continuously subjected sexual assault by a person named Anto who was residing near their house. When they asked the child about it, she also confirmed the same. The doctor told them that they would contact childline and sent them back home. Thereafter, a childline member by name, Amrutha, from Payyannur Childline called her over phone, informing her that the doctor had informed them about the matter and asked whether they should visit their house. At that time, they told her that they should not come to the house and that they would go to the Childline office. They went to the Childline office, where the victim was interviewed. The childline worker sent them back, saying them that since they were residing in Kasaragod they would contact with the childline Kasaragod. Thereafter, workers from childline Kasaragod came to their house and interviewed the child. On the next day,i.e, on 01.02.2020, police came to their house and recorded the statement of the child in her presence. As demanded by the police, she handed over the dress worn by the child on the date of the incident. The victim showed the police the house and the room in which the incident had occurred. Thereafter, the child was first taken to District Hospital Kanhangad and then to the Magistrate at around 07.00 p.m. The Magistrate recorded the statement of the child. She handed over her phone to the police. The said phone was being used by the child for her online classes and had been with the child most of the time. The police seized the phone after covering and sealing it, and she placed her signature on the Ext.P3 document prepared by the police at that time. Thus the evidence given by PW2 is fully tallying with the evidence of PW1.

12. PW3 is the grandfather of the victim, and he deposed fully in support of the evidence of PW2. He deposed that on 05.03.2020, he and the child identified the vehicle, which was a Maruthi Alto Car, bearing registration No. KL-60-P-6881. The victim showed the back seat of the vehicle from where she had been assaulted. She showed the places of the incidents to the police on 07.03.2020. Ext.P5 to P7 were the Mahazars prepared by the police at that time, and he had put his signatures therein.

13. PW4, Dr. Sony Thomas, gave evidence that while he was working as Administrator-cum-Clinical Psychologist at Maxmind De-addiction and Psychiatrist Treatment Centre, Aravanchal, on 25.01.2020, a child was brought to him by her grandmother and uncle with a complaint that she was not taking food and used to shut inside a room. When he interviewed the child, she told him about the overt-acts from an adult person and that she was suffering from mental problems on account of the same. Accordingly, he had referred the child to the female counselor of the hospital. After counseling, the counselor told him that the child had told her that she used to talk with that person and he had done repeated sexual intercourses with her during nights. He informed the matter to her grandmother and uncle and thereafter, to the Childline on the same day. The report so given by him to the police was tendered in evidence through PW4 and marked the same as Ext.P8.

14. The clinical psychologist, who had given counseling to the victim from Maxmind Hospital as deposed by PW1, got examined as PW5. She testified that while she was working counselor at Maxmind Psycho-Social Rehabilitation Centre Aravanchal as a Psychiatric Social Worker, on 25.01.2020, she had given counseling to the victim (PW1) as referred to her by Dr.Sony Thomas (PW4). The complaints were that the child was trailing in her studies, used to shut herself inside the room, and she was not feeling hungry. Also, she was addicted to the mobile phone and used to stay detached from her grandparents. When interviewed, the child told her that a person had sexually used her on several occasions, showing porn pictures and inducing her to do the same, and when she expressed her reluctance to do so, he insisted that they should do so if their relationship had to be strong. She was told that it was one Anto who was doing so to her. Thereafter, she called the grandmother and uncle of the child and told them about the occurrence. They identified the person as one whom they knew. She referred the child back to Dr.Sony Thomas (PW4). According to her, after the counselling, she met them again and the matter was reported to the Childline.

15. Apart from that, PW17 was examined to prove the registration of Ext.P25 FIR. Ext.P27, the ownership certificate of the house, was tendered in evidence through PW19. PW20 is the Investigating Officer. PW21, who also conducted a part of the investigation, also supported the prosecution.

16. Regarding the contention raised by the learned counsel for the accused that medical evidence does not support the allegation of sexual penetration, in paragraph No.20 of the judgment, the learned Special Judge addressed the issue and held as under:

                  "20. The learned defence counsel, in addition to his oral arguments before the court, filed a memorandum of arguments. In the evidence before the court, the survivor has a case that when the accused came to her house on the first day, i.e, on 08.09.2019, the accused had shown her a video of a man and woman having sexual intercourse and told her that they also would do the same. The learned counsel would argue that there is no such case in Ext.P1 F.I.S that before indulging in first intercourse the accused had shown sex videos to PW1. But, no such omission in FIS has been brought to the notice of PW1 during cross-examination and there was no attempt on the part of the learned defence counsel to get her explanation for the same. Therefore, this argument is no available for the defence. The leamed defence counsel would submit that the case of the survivor that the accused had forceful and full fledged sexual intercourse with the survivor on 08.09.2019, 09.09.2019 and 10.09.2019 cannot be believed since Ext.P26 Medical Examination Report and the evidence of PW18, the doctor who examined the survivor do not support the same. The evidence of PW18 would show that at the time of her examination, the hymen of the survivor was intact there were no physical injuries and there was no traces of any physical or sexual violence at the time of examination. Referring to this evidence of PW18 and Ext.P26 document, the learned counsel would submit that had there any full fledged sexual intercourse on three days continuously, there would have torns over the hymen and other injuries on the inner and outer part of the vagina and that in the absence of  any  such injuries,  the  case  of  the prosecution that the accused had sexual intercourse with the survivor cannot be believed. The learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that merely for the reason that the doctor has reported the hymen of the victim was found intact and that there were no evidence of physical or sexual violence, it cannot be said that the overt acts of penetrative sexual assault were not proved. In support of his argument the learned Special Public Prosecutor relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in Sureshkumar @ Koyan V. State of Kerala. In paragraph 12 of the said decision, the Hon'ble High Court has held thus: " Coming to the evidence tendered by the doctor, merely for the reason that the doctor, has reported that hymen of the victim girl was found intact and that the doctor did not find any evidence of vaginal penetration, it cannot be said that the prosecution has not proved the overt act of rape and penetrative sexual assault alleged against the accused. After the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013, penetration of the genital organ of the accused to any extent is sufficient to constitute rape. Similar is the position as regards penetrative sexual assault in terms of the Act. In other words, even in a case where there is absence of medical evidence indicating penetration, the same does not absolve the accused from the guilt". The learned Special Public Prosecutor also placed reliance on the decision in Tarakeswar Sahu Vs. State of Bihar (2006) 8 SC 560, Ranjith Hazarika Vs. State of Assam (1998 KHC 1588) and Vahidkhan V. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010 KHC 6059) to support his argument. The crux of the above decisions is that partial or slightest penetration could be enough, in order to constitute an offence u/s. 375 of IPC, and non rupture of hymen or absence of injury on victim's private parts would not lead to an inference that there was no sexual intercourse, a slightest penetration, not so as to injure the hymen also would constitute a crime of rape and, therefore, proof of rupture of hymen is not necessary to prove the same. In state of U.P Vs. Babulnath, (1994)6 SCC 29 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held: "To constitute the offence of rape, neither under section 375 of IPC nor the explanation attached thereto, require that there should be necessarily be complete penetration of the penis into the private parts of the victim/ prosecutrix. In other words, to constitute an offence of rape, it is not necessary that there should be complete penetration of the male organ with emission of semen and rupture of hymen. Even partial or slightest penetration of the male organ in the labia majora or the vulva or pudenda with or without any emission of semen and even an attempt of penetration into the private parts of the victim would be quite enough for the purpose of section 375 and 376 IPC. That being so, it is quite possible to commit legally the offence of rape even without causing any injury to the genitals or leaving any seminal stains". So far as the case on hand is concerned, the survivor has not detailed the material particulars of the act of sexual intercourse, but simply deposed that the accused had forcible sexual intercourse with her. During cross-examination, she has deposed that on the three days, the accused had entered into full-fledged sexual intercourse with her. But, there is nothing in the cross-examination to get what the survivor exactly meant by saying there was full-fledged sexual intercourse. There is nothing in black and white either in the chief examination or in cross-examination of PW1 stating that the penis of the accused actually penetrated into the vagina of the survivor. There is nothing to show that PW1 who was a child aged 13 years at the time of the incidents  knew  what  exactly  is  the  penetrative sexual act. She has not even stated or made to state whether there was emission of semen in the course of the intercourse. Unless there is express evidence to prove that the survivor knew what exactly is a penetrative sexual act, she cannot be blamed for not giving exact details of the intercourse in her evidence, especially when she was not asked how, to what extent and in what manner she experienced the penetration of penis into her vagina during the sexual intercourse. In the light of the facts and circumstances and the decisions referred to above, the fact that the hymen of the survivor was intact and there were no evidence of physical or sexual violence on her body at the time of examination by the Doctor (PW18) are not grounds to disbelieve the evidence of PW1 about the sexual intercourse by the accused with her."

17. Adverting to the said finding, the said finding is only to be justified, as it is the settled law that, in case of aggravated sexual assault or rape, rupture of hymen is not a mandatory requirement. In fact, insertion of any object to any extent into the vagina, anus or mouth would satisfy the requirement of penetration. To put it otherwise, penetration slightly on the vaginal orifice, labia majora, or vulva alone would satisfy the ingredients of penetration to constitute the offence. Thus the contention raised by the learned counsel for the accused as to the absence of medical evidence to show rupture of hymen, by itself, would not succeed.

18. As regards the delay, in this case, as per the evidence given by the victim and as alleged by the prosecution, the victim was initially subjected to sexual assault by taking her in a car bearing Reg.No.KL-60-P-6881 in the month of July 2019, and on that day, the accused grabbed her breast and kissed her from the back seat of the above said car. It was thereafter, on three days, viz., 08.09.2019,  09.09.2019  and  10.09.2019,  the  accused trespassed upon the residential house of the victim bearing No. E.E.P.XV-476 of Chittarikkal Village and removed her dress, showed obscene videos on his phone and instructed her to engage in sexual acts as shown in the video, and had sexual intercourse with her. After the first incident on 08.09.2019, he repeated the same on 09.09.2019 and 10.09.2019, after threatening her that he had recorded the video of first instance of sexual intercourse on his mobile phone and if she would not co-operate, the same would be published. It is true that even though the victim was subjected to sexual assault lastly on 10.09.2019, she did not disclose the same to anybody, and there was no communication between the victim and the accused till 22.01.2020, but on 22.01.2020, after breaking the pause in between 10.09.2019 and 21.01.2020, the accused called PW1 in the mobile phone of the mother of the victim and she was directed to call him. Further, she was informed through telephone that on 22.01.2020, during the procession of the festival, he would be waiting in a car and she had to meet the accused. Thereafter, she was not in a position to study and accordingly, she was taken to PW4 and PW5. Therefore, it could not be held that there is any material delay in disclosing the occurrences, as the cause of action  for disclosing the occurrences reached its proximity after 22.01.2020, which led to psychological examination by PW4 and PW5.

19. Coming to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the accused that the case was foisted as the relationship between the accused and PW1 was noticed by the Headmistress of the school and there was quarrel between the accused and her uncle, which led to false implication of the accused also could not yield. Thus on reappreciation of evidence, none of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the accused would sustain and the finding of guilt recorded by the learned Special Judge only to be justified. Therefore, the conviction is liable to be confirmed.

20 Coming to the sentence, the learned Special Judge imposed the statutory minimum sentence. Thus, no interference in the sentence is possible. Thus, the sentence is also liable to be confirmed.

21 In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly.

22 The order suspending sentence and granting bail to the accused stands vacated, with direction to the accused to appear before the special court forthwith to undergo the sentence, failing which, the Special Court is directed to execute the sentence, without fail.

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