K. V. Jayakumar, J.

1. In this matter, the prosecution portrays the sad plight of a minor girl aged 14 and a half years who was kidnapped from the lawful custody of her guardian, taken to numerous places in Kerala and the State of Tamil Nadu, and was subjected to penetrative sexual assault for a prolonged period of about 45 days by the appellant, who was an employee of the Irrigation Department and aged 36 years during the relevant time.

2. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred impugning the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Thodupuzha, in S.C. No.514 of 2011. The appellant/accused No.1 stood for trial for the offences punishable under sections 363 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused Nos.2 to 5 were charged for the offence punishable under Section 118 of IPC.

3. By the impugned judgment dated 07.12.2019, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused No.1 as follows:

                  i) to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/-(Two lakh only) for the offence punishable under Section376 of IPC, with a default clause.

                  ii) sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand only) for the offence under Section 363 of IPC, with a default clause.

4. However, accused Nos. 2 and 5 were found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 118 of the IPC, and they were acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge.

Prosecution case

5. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the survivor girl, aged about 14 and a half years, got acquainted with the appellant in a marriage function. The prosecution alleges that the appellant/accused No.1 has kidnapped PW4, the survivor, on 28.08.2009 at about 08:00 a.m. from the custody of her parents and took her to Kattappana in a motorcycle bearing registration No.TN 74 Z-3694 owned by the second accused. At that time, the girl was a student of 10th standard in SN School at Kanjikuzhy. According to the prosecution, the appellant kidnapped her on the pretext that he would take her to attend prayers in a church at Kattappana. The appellant made her believe that if she attended the prayers in the said church, she would get high marks in the 10th standard examination.

                  5.1. From Kattappana, she was taken to numerous places in the State of Tamil Nadu and subjected to penetrative sexual assault on numerous occasions against her will, putting her in fear of causing hurt. The prosecution further alleges that accused Nos.2 to 5 assisted the first accused by supplying vehicles, providing accommodation, and arranging other logistic support.

                  5.2. The prosecution further alleges that the victim was shifted from one place to another to conceal her from the law-enforcing agencies and after continuous and prolonged sexual abuse and harassment, he instructed the girl to surrender before the JFCM-I, Vanchiyoor. Accordingly, on 13.10.2009, the victim surrendered before that court and from there, as per the direction of the learned Magistrate, the police took her to Mahila Mandiram and arrested the accused.

Registration of Crime and Investigation:

6. On the basis of Ext.P1 FI statement lodged by PW1, the mother of the survivor, on 30.08.2009 at 1:30 pm PW20, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, registered Ext. P19 FIR as Crime 169/2009 for ‘Man Missing’.

                  6.1. PW31 (Kuriakose), the Circle Inspector of Police, Idukki, took over the charge of the investigation on 31.08.2009. He conducted the initial investigation. He recorded the statements of PW1, the mother of the victim, the husband of PW1, and her mother-in-law. Thereafter, PW27, Mohandas, Circle Inspector of Police, Kanjikuzhy, continued the investigation.

                  6.2. After taking charge of the investigation, PW27 submitted a petition before the Cyber Cell of the Police Department seeking the call detail records of the mobile phone of the first accused. PW27 recorded the statements of CWs. 4, 5 and 6. On 30.09.2009, Ext.P36 report was prepared, through which the word ‘Man Missing’ in the FIR was altered to ‘Missing Person’.

                  6.3. On receiving information regarding the surrender of the victim and accused No.1 before the JFCM, Thiruvananthapuram, on 14.10.2009, PW27 appeared before that Court and filed an affidavit stating that PW20 (Arumughan), Assistant Sub-Inspector, Kanjikuzhi Police Station, had registered an FIR with respect to the missing of the victim. Thereafter, he obtained an order for the production of the first accused before the jurisdictional Court. The accused was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate pursuant to the orders of JFCM, Vanchiyoor, and necessary orders were obtained for the custodial interrogation.

                  6.4. On 15.10.2009, he produced the survivor before Dr. Sathya Babu, a Gynaecologist of Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Adimaly, for medical examination. On the next day, he seized MOs.1 to 13 from the victim through Ext.P14 mahazar. MOs.1 to 10, the dresses worn by the victim, were produced before the court through Ext.P32 property list. Those articles were later forwarded to the Forensic Laboratory as per Ext.P33 forwarding note. On 16.10.2009, he submitted Ext.P35 report adding Section 118 of IPC and the names of all the accused.

                  6.5. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer recorded the confession statement of the accused No.1. Based on the confession statement, the Investigating Officer proceeded to different places in the State of Tamil Nadu where a part of the transaction had taken place, such as Kanyakumari, Velankanni, Erkkadu, Salem, Aambathur, Nagercoil, Ooty, identified the lodges as shown by the appellant and seized the relevant registers from there. On 21.10.2009, PW27, along with the police party and Accused No.1, reached Hotel Golden Sands, Velankanni. He prepared Ext. P2 Scene Mahazar of Hotel Golden Sands, Velankanni, in the presence of witnesses. Thereafter, he seized the Guest Register of the said hotel after preparing Ext.P25 seizure mahazar. The register showed that from 03.09.2009 06:30 pm to 05.09.2009 08:00 pm the accused occupied Room No.504.

                  6.6. Thereafter, on 22.10.2009, he reached Sivasree Lodge in Salem along with accused No.1 and prepared Ext. P8 scene mahazar, noting the details of Room No.201, and seized the register of arrival of the lodge. On the same day, PW27 proceeded to Royal Resort situated at Erkkadu Panchayat, Salem, and prepared Ext.P7 Scene Mahazar of the lodge in the presence of witnesses. He seized the Guest Register of the said resort after preparing Ext.P27 Mahazar. The Register would show that the 1st accused, along with PW4, stayed at Room No.9 of the resort from 06.09.2009 till 07.09.2009.

                  6.7. On 23.10.2009, he, along with accused No.1, visited Nagercoil and prepared Ext.P6 Scene mahazar of Sahaya Matha Complex Lodge. After preparing Ext. P5 seizure mahazar, he seized the relevant register from the lodge.

                  6.8. Thereafter, he proceeded to the house of accused No.3 at Vellarada Village, Thiruvananthapuram, as led by accused No.1. He prepared Ext.P23 mahazar, noting the details of the house of accused No. 3.

                  6.9. On 23.04.2010, PW27, along with accused No.1 and police party, reached the rented house of accused No.2 at Ambathur, Thiruvalloor Street, Tamil Nadu, as shown by accused No. 1, and prepared Ext.P17 scene Mahazar.

                  6.10. Later, as instructed and shown by the accused No.1, he reached Royal Paradise Lodge, Ooty, and prepared Ext.P22 mahazar. He seized the Entry Register of the said lodge through Ext. P12 seizure mahazar.

                  6.11. PW27, the Investigating Officer, has produced the accused No.1 for medical examination before PW15 (Dr. Navas) and conducted a Potency test. He has also seized the motorcycle bearing registration No. TN 74 Z-3694 owned by the second accused, which was used by the accused No.1 for taking the victim from Kanjikuzhi, after preparing Ext.P11 seizure mahazar. He arrested accused Nos. 2 to 5 after preparing the relevant documents.

                  6.12. After completing the investigation, he laid the charge sheet before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Idukki.

The Committal Proceedings

7. After completing the initial steps, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Thodupuzha. The Sessions Court took this case on file as S.C. No. 514/2011 and made over the case for trial and disposal to the Additional Sessions Court-I, Thodupuzha.

                  7.1. The learned Sessions Judge framed the charge after hearing both sides. The charge was read over and explained to the accused. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 31 and marked Ext.P1 to P45. The MOs. 1 to 13 were also identified and marked. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They denied the incriminating circumstances put to them and maintained the plea of innocence. On the side of defence, Exts.D1 to D6 were marked.

The findings of the learned Sessions Judge.

8. The learned Sessions Judge, after a meticulous evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, found the testimony of PW4, the minor victim, to be cogent, reliable and convincing. The trial court was of the view that the testimony was corroborated by the evidence of PW1, her mother, and PW5, her maternal cousin. The learned Sessions Judge has also relied on the medical and forensic evidence to arrive at the conclusion.

                  8.1. Profuse reliance was placed on the Judgments in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (AIR 1996 SC 1392) , Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat (1983 CriLJ 1096) and Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 2019 SC 1)

                  8.2. However, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the other accused, holding that they had no mens rea to commit the crime.

Submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant

9. Sri. A. B. Mohankumar, the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the impugned judgment is legally unsustainable. The appellant was convicted without proper evaluation of the evidence on record in its correct perspective.

                  9.1. The learned counsel further submitted that the evidence of PW4 survivor is not reliable and credible. It is further pointed out that apart from the testimony of the victim, no other material evidence was adduced by the prosecution to corroborate the testimony of the victim. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the defence that the prosecution has no case that the victim had, at any point of time, attempted to escape from the custody of accused No.1. According to the learned counsel, this circumstance indicates that the victim did not attempt to escape as she was a willing participant in the journey with accused No.1.

                  9.2. The learned counsel would submit that in the initial stage, when the child was produced before the learned Magistrate, no allegation was levelled against the appellant. The learned Sessions Judge failed to take note of certain relevant facts of the case that the appellant attempted to save the victim from the abusive relatives, and the documents adduced in this case would prove the same. The learned counsel would further submit that the appellant is falsely implicated in this case.

                  9.3. It is submitted that at the time when the victim was produced before the Magistrate, her dresses were not seized by the police. The learned counsel also urged that no DNA test was conducted by the investigating agency to ascertain whether the appellant is the real perpetrator of the crime. It is further submitted that no cogent and credible medical evidence was adduced by the prosecution to substantiate the allegation of PW4. It is further submitted that the oral evidence of PW4 is inconsistent with the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution.

                  9.4. The learned counsel submitted that the trial court failed to appreciate the defence case in its correct perspective. The learned Sessions Judge failed to note that the complaint taken on file as CMP No. 7279/2009 by the learned Magistrate before whom the victim was produced was not investigated by the investigating agency.

                  9.5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge is not in conformity with the relevant statutes and the authoritative precedents. It was submitted that no reasons were attributed by the learned Sessions Judge for imposing the maximum sentence of life imprisonment to the appellant. The learned counsel would submit that the sentence awarded in the case is excessive and harsh.

The Submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor:

10. Adv. Sareena George, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, submitted that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge against the appellant/accused No.1 beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the version of PW4 (victim) is reliable, credible, and trustworthy. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that, if the version of the victim inspires the confidence of the Court, it can form the sole basis for conviction. The learned Sessions Judge properly appreciated the evidence on record and arrived at a correct conclusion, and no interference whatsoever is warranted in this matter. The evidence of PW4, the victim, is corroborated by the evidence of PW21, the doctor, and the medical evidence.

Analysis

11. In order to prove the charge against the 1st accused/appellant, the basic and foundational facts to be proved by the prosecution is the victim was below the age of 15.

                  11.1 The victim, in her chief examination, stated that her date of birth is 17.02.1995. PW19, Suresh, the Headmaster of SN School, Kanjikuzhy, has produced Ext.P18, the extract of the school admission register of the victim. As per Ext.P18 document, her date of birth is shown as 17.02.1995. He further testified that the victim was a student of Class X in his school. There was no serious challenge in the cross-examination about the age of the victim. There is overwhelming evidence, as rightly held by the learned Sessions Judge, that the victim was aged 14 and a half years at the time of the alleged occurrence.

                  11.2 Now we shall proceed to evaluate the evidence of the material witnesses of this case in view of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. The first submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the evidence of PW4, the survivor, is unworthy of credence and cannot form the sole basis for conviction.

                  11.3 PW4 is the victim of this case. She deposed that the incident occurred while she was studying in Class 10 at Sree Narayana Higher Secondary School, Kanjikuzhy in 2009. At that time, she resided at Kanjikuzhy along with her parents and sister. Her sister was a student of 8th standard in SN School. Her father was employed abroad.

                  11.4 She further stated that during the relevant time, she was aged 14 and a half years. She identified all the accused in the dock.

                  11.5 In her evidence, she gave a graphic version of the prolonged sexual abuse to which she was subjected for a period of about 45 days at different places.

                  11.6 Her evidence can be discussed on different heads for the sake of convenience.

                  A. The victim getting acquainted with the accused and kidnapping

                  A.1. The victim girl testified that she got acquainted with the accused at a marriage function. She used to call the accused as ‘Hari Chettai’ (brother). She gave the phone number of her mother to the accused. Thereafter, the accused used to call her on the mobile phone.

                  A.2. On 27.08.2009, the accused contacted her and told her that he would take her to Kattappana for attending a prayer. While she was returning from school, the accused was waiting by the side of the road at Kanjikuzhy. The next morning, the accused took her on a motorcycle, and they proceeded to Kattappana. When they reached Kattappana, the accused told her that they could not reach the church in time and the prayer was over. The victim requested him to bring her back to her house. The said request was turned down by the appellant. Thereafter, they proceeded to Kanyakumari on the bike.

                  B. The incident at Kanyakumari

                  B.1. From Kattappana, the accused took her to Kanyakumari via Kambam - Theni. They reached Kanyakumari at night. The accused told her that on that day, they could not go back to her house. They resided in a lodge named Melody Park at Kanyakumari. The accused went out to purchase food. When she made a request to go back to her house, the accused turned down her request.

                  B.2. They ate food together. When she saw a box full of SIM cards in the bag of the accused, she asked why he was keeping many SIM cards. He replied that it was just for fun. After taking a bath, they lay on the bed.

                  B.3. The victim further stated that at that time, the accused attempted to undress her. When she refused, the accused forcefully undressed her. The victim stated that at that time she was on her menstrual cycle. The accused got angry and told her that she would have informed him of the matter earlier.

                  B.4. Thereafter, they slept there. On the next day, that is, on 29.08.2009, they proceeded to an Ashram at Nagercoil where the accused had resided for a long period. He further told her that they could live in the Ashram for some time in secrecy.

                  C. The incident at Nagercoil

                  C.1. On 29.08.2009, they proceeded to Nagercoil on the motorcycle. When they reached the Ashram, a Swamy conversed with the accused. The Swamy of the Ashram refused to provide accommodation to them in the Ashram. Thereafter, the accused contacted the second accused, Jayaprasad, and informed him that they would come to his house. In the meanwhile, the accused contacted the accused No.4 (Rinto) and informed him that they proceeded to the house of the 2nd accused at Madras. They kept the motorcycle at the Nagercoil Railway Station and proceeded to Madras by train.

                  D. The incident at Madras

                  D.1. On 30.08.2009, they reached Madras at 11 a.m. Jayaprasad, accused No.2, was waiting there. The 2nd accused asked them to wait at Marina Beach since he had to go for a job. As instructed by the 2nd accused, they proceeded to Marina Beach in an autorickshaw. At about 6 p.m., the 2nd accused, Jayaprasad, came to Marina Beach and took them to his house in an autorickshaw. In that house, there was a room and a kitchen. The 2nd accused asked them to occupy the bedroom of the house. They lay down on a mat after spreading a ‘kavi dhoti’ on it. The victim further stated that she made a request to the accused to bring her back to her house. The accused again rejected her request and told her that a case was registered against him. That night, the accused forcefully undressed her and committed penetrative sexual assault on her. When she started crying, the accused held her mouth. He repeated those acts several times. She was bleeding, and the blood spilled over the dhoti. When the victim told him that she could not rise in the morning, the accused slapped her on the face. The victim told him that her father never beat her. At that time, the accused inflicted another blow on her face. Then she cried aloud. The accused consoled her. On that day, they remained in the house. When the 2nd accused came back after his work, he informed him that the police were searching for them and asked them to leave that place.

                  D.2. The accused told Jayaprasad that he had no money with him. Thereafter, the accused requested her to give her gold ornaments for pledging and to raise money. He removed her gold chain, three rings, and a locket. Those ornaments were handed over to the 2nd accused, Jayaprasad. After a short while, Jayaprasad came back with money and handed it over to the accused. They resided in that house for one more day. On that day also, the accused had sexual intercourse with her. When she refused to give consent, the accused asked her whether she wanted more blows. Thereafter, as instructed by accused No.2, Jayaprasad, they proceeded to Velankanni.

                  E. The incident at Velankanni

                  E.1. On 03.09.2009, they reached Velankanni and took a room in a lodge named Golden Sands. At Velankanni, she became sick with a fever. The accused gave some homeopathic pills to her. They visited the Velankanni church and came back. When they came back to the room, the accused changed his SIM card and made some calls to Jayaprasad and the 4th accused, Rinto. She noticed that the accused destroyed the SIM card after making each call. The 4th accused, Rinto, contacted the accused over the phone and informed him that her father came back to native and intensive search is going on. On that day also, she was subjected to sexual assault.

                  E.2. The accused did not permit her to attend calls. The accused used to abuse her when she attempted to attend calls. On 05.09.2009, they proceeded to Salem by bus and reached there the next morning.

F. The incident at Salem

                  F.1. At Salem, they took a room in a lodge named Sivasree. The 4th accused, Rinto, requested the accused not to use a mobile phone and instead to make calls from a public booth. On that night, the accused asked her to read the Bible, which was in his possession. The accused told her to pray as the police would arrive and catch them. The victim further stated that at Sivasree lodge, she was also subjected to penetrative sexual assault. At about 11 a.m., on the next day, they vacated Sivasree lodge and proceeded to Erkkadu in a bus.

                  G. The incident at Erkkadu

                  G.1. At Erkkadu, they took a room at Hotel Royal Paris and resided there. The victim stated that the habit of the accused is that he would get angry quickly and beat her. After a short while, the accused would treat her with love.

                  G.2. According to the victim, during their stay at Royal Paris Hotel, she was subjected to sexual assault by the accused. The accused contacted the 5th accused, Jestin, and demanded money. They proceeded to a place in an autorickshaw where the 5th accused, Jestin, met them and gave Rs.10,000/- to the accused.

                  H. The incident at Sahaya Matha Hotel

                  The 5th accused, Jestin, had arranged a room at Hotel Sahaya Matha for two days. On 11.09.2009, they vacated the said room and proceeded to Ooty.

                  I. The incident at Ooty

                  I.1. They resided for three days in Girish Lodge at Ooty. During their stay at Girish Hotel, Ooty, she became sick and was unable to move around. The accused contacted the 2nd accused, Jayaprasad, and told him that he could not move with this girl anymore since she was very weak. The victim further stated that the accused had sexual intercourse with her on numerous occasions against her will. When she refused, the accused asked her, ‘Why are you living? ’.

                  I.2. During their stay at Ooty, they visited different places. When they came back to the hotel room, the accused struck her on her face and hand. As instructed by the 2nd accused, Jayaprasad, over the phone, they proceeded to the house of the 3rd accused, Palraj, at Vellarada.

                  I.3. From Ooty, they proceeded to Thiruvananthapuram in a bus on 15.09.2009. When they reached Marthandam, Palraj was waiting there on a bike.

                  J. The incident at Vellarada in the house of Palraj

                  J.1. They resided in the house of Palraj for about one month. Palraj warned the accused not to use mobile phones. The victim further stated that at Vellarada also, she was subjected to repeated sexual assault. During their stay at Vellarada, the 4th accused Rinto used to visit them and told the accused that the police were likely to reach there. In the house of Palraj, the accused used to rape her after lighting the candles. He used to quarrel with her. During their stay at Vellarada, the 2nd accused came there and gave some money to the accused. Jayaprasad (accused No.2) told them not to go out as her father was conducting an extensive search. The 2nd accused told her to stand along with the accused in all situations. After a discussion with Jayaprasad, the accused asked her to write a letter stating that not make any enquiries about them and to permit them to live elsewhere. On the next day, the 4th accused Rinto came to the house of Palraj and gave a white paper and pen and asked her to write a letter. She took four days to finish the letter after correcting it about seven to eight times. The accused wrote the address of her parents in the letter. Thereafter, the accused handed over the letters to Jayaprasad and Rinto and asked them to post two letters from Madras, one from Kottayam and the other from Ernakulam. The accused forced her to write a letter in her handwriting stating that she left her house in accordance with her wish.

                  K. The surrender of the victim before the Vanchiyoor Court

                  K.1. On 14.10.2009, Palraj and the accused took her in a Sumo Car to Vanchiyoor Court. When they reached the court, Palraj directed them to hand over the letter to the Judge. Palraj gave further instructions to her that if the Judge asked anything about the incident, tell him that the accused did not abuse her. He gave further instructions to her to submit before the Judge that she wants to go along with the accused. The accused asked her to hand over the letter to the Judge. She proceeded to the Judge and handed over the letter as instructed by the accused. She does not know the name of the Judge to whom she handed over the letter. She further stated that the accused was there in the court for some time. When he tried to leave the court, the police restrained him. The Judge has passed an order to keep her in Mahila Mandiram. The victim further stated that the police took her to the Mahila Mandiram and produced her before the court the next day. On that day, her parents were present in the Vanchiyoor Court. The Judge asked her whether she wished to go with her parents; she answered positively. Accordingly, she was taken to her house at Kanjikuzhy.

                  K.2. In the later part of her chief examination, the victim stated that she gave a statement to the woman police and before the Magistrate Court. Ext.P3 is her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. She was taken to Adimaly Hospital, and a doctor examined her.

                  K.3. She identified the Yamaha Bike driven by the 1st accused. In court, she had identified the dresses worn by her during the relevant period as MOs.1 to 10. She had also identified MO11 Ash coloured bed sheet, MO12 Kavi dhoti of the appellant and MO13, a folding bed used by them. She has also identified each accused in the dock.

The tenor of the cross-examination

12. The victim was subjected to searching and severe cross-examination. The tenor of the cross-examination was that the victim accompanied the appellant voluntarily, of her own free will, and therefore, during the 45 days, she never tried to escape from the custody of the appellant. An attempt was also made in the cross-examination to highlight that the victim was never in trauma and she had an excellent career. Questions were put to the victim to show that she is a student of BHMS and secured high marks in 10th and 12th standards.

                  12.1. In cross-examination, she reiterated that the 1st accused took her to Kattappana, stating that for attending a prayer.

                  12.2. Definite questions were asked to the survivor as to whether she made any request to save her from the custody of the appellant during her stay with him at different places. She replied that the appellant did not allow her to escape. She does not have the wisdom to raise her voice against the appellant. On numerous occasions, she stated that the accused inflicted blows on her whenever she turned down the sexual request of the appellant. She felt that even if she attempted to escape, the appellant would catch her.

                  12.3. In re-examination, she made it clear that she was taken by the 1st accused by deception. Further, she made it clear that A3 Palraj gave clear instructions to her, during her surrender at Vanchiyoor Court, that she would support the 1st accused in all situations.

13. Before we proceed further, it would be useful to refer to the law laid down by the apex court on this point.

14. The Apex Court in Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 21 had occasion to explain under what circumstances a witness be categorized as a sterling witness and held as under:

                  “In our considered opinion, the "sterling witness" should be of a very high quality and calibre whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such a witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross -examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have co - relation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a "sterling witness" whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged.”

15. In Deepak Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025 KHC OnLine 6662) , the Apex Court reiterated that conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it inspires confidence, as corroboration is not a sine qua non for conviction in rape cases. If the evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity and the "probabilities factor" does not render it unworthy of credence. As a general rule, there is no reason to insist on corroboration except from medical evidence. The conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it inspires confidence. The conviction can be based solely on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix, and no corroboration is required unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate the courts to insist for corroboration of her statement. Corroboration of the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law, but a guidance of prudence under the given facts and circumstances.

16. The Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Manga Singh (2019 (16) SCC 759) held that the conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it inspires confidence. The conviction can be based solely on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix, and no corroboration is required unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate the courts to insist on corroboration of her statement. Corroboration of the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law, but a guidance of prudence under the given facts and circumstances. Minor contradictions or small discrepancies should not be a ground for throwing out the evidence of the prosecutrix.

17. In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Hukum Chand alias Monu (2026 KHC OnLine 6215) , the Apex Court, while reiterating the settled principles governing the appreciation of the testimony of child witnesses and the assessment of inconsistencies and omissions, held that no hard and fast rule can be laid down for assessing the competency or credibility of a child witness. The Court further observed that a truthful witness may make honest mistakes or omit immaterial details, and such normal variation should not result in wholesale rejection of evidence. However, when omissions or contradictions relate to material facts that form the foundation of the prosecution's version, they assume significance and may create reasonable doubt.

18. The Apex Court, in the above-referred cases, declared that conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the victim if it inspires the confidence of the court, is reliable and believable. The Apex Court categorically held that minor discrepancies, omissions and contradictions are only to be discarded.

19. In the instant case, the victim gave an unequivocal version about each and every incident right from the day of alleged kidnapping till she had surrendered before the Vanchiyoor Magistrate Court. She spoke about the places where they stayed and the manner in which she was subjected to sexual abuse by the 1st accused. She has also stated that the appellant has abused her by putting her in fear of causing hurt to her.

20. She had explained the circumstances in which she was forced to remain in the custody of the appellant. The minor discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, in our view, are not sufficient to disbelieve her version. On a careful consideration of the evidence of the victim, we are of the view that her evidence is of sterling quality, wholly reliable, natural and truthful. We find no reason to doubt the evidence of the victim of this case.

21. The second submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the evidence of the victim is contradictory and inconsistent with the medical evidence and the evidence of the other witnesses.

The evidence of the mother of the victim

22. PW1, the mother of the victim, testified that during the year 2009 the victim was a student of Xth Standard in SN High School, Kanjikuzhy. At that time, her age was 14 years. Her daughter got acquainted with the 1st accused at a marriage function. On 28.08.2009, while her younger daughter came to her house from school, she told her that her sister did not attend school on that day. They made enquiries with the relatives and others, but to no avail. Thereafter, she lodged Ext.P1 FIS before the police on 30.08.2009.

                  22.1 She stated that the 1st accused used to call the victim over mobile phone. She warned her not to talk to the 1st accused. She also warned the 1st accused not to visit their house. After a lapse of 45 days, she regained her daughter from Vanchiyoor Court.

                  22.2 She identified the dresses worn by the victim when she left the house on 28.08.2009. She has also identified the gold chain, locket, two gold earrings, three gold rings, and a pair of anklets.

                  22.3 She further stated that the first accused was an employee of the Irrigation Department. During cross-examination, she stated that the 1st accused is a friend of her brother Sijo.

Medical Evidence

23. PW21, Dr. Sathya Babu, was the Asst. Surgeon and Gynaecologist at Taluk Hospital, Adimali, who examined the victim on 15.10.2009 and issued Ext.P20 certificate. In Ext.P20 medical certificate, he has noted a healed tear on the right side of the introitus at the 8 o’clock position, lateral to the hymen. The hymen was elastic, with a healed tear on the six o’clock position of the hymen. He further stated that her vagina admits one finger cavity. He opined that there is evidence of genital injury per penetration. The history noted by him in Ext.P20 certificate is as follows :-

                 

                  The evidence of PW21, Dr. Sathya Babu, and Ext.P20 certificate would indicate that the victim girl was subjected to penetrative sexual assault.

24. On careful consideration of the evidence of PW21, Dr. Sathya Babu, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the medical evidence is inconsistent with the evidence of the victim. PW21 has unequivocally opined that the girl was subjected to penetrative sexual assault. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the history as narrated by the victim before Dr. Sathya Babu would suggest that the victim voluntarily proceeded with the accused No.1. We find no merit in the said argument also. The victim in her chief examination made it clear that she was tutored by Palraj, accused No.3, to support the accused in all the contingencies.

25. The evidence of the mother of the victim would sufficiently corroborate the version of the victim on material particulars. The mother of the victim asserted that the 1st accused used to make calls to the victim over mobile phone. Furthermore, the 1st accused visited her house to see the victim. She has warned both of them to keep away from such activities.

26. Another argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that certain witnesses, who are the employees of the hotels, wherein the 1st accused allegedly resided with the victim, turned hostile to the prosecution. The hostility of such witnesses makes the prosecution story unbelievable and improbable. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the hostility of the witnesses to the seizure of the registers from the hotels and lodges is a vital connecting link to prove the prosecution narrative. He submitted that in the absence of such vital link evidence, the conviction cannot be legally sustainable.

27. Indeed, certain independent witnesses and the employees and staff of the hotels and lodges of different places of the State of Tamil Nadu did not support the prosecution case. However, PW27, the Investigating Officer, gave a clear account of his visit to the different places of occurrence and the seizure of relevant registers from there.

28. PW27, the Investigating Officer, interrogated the 1st accused in custody. Thereafter, he proceeded to numerous places in the State of Tamil Nadu, including Kanyakumari, Velankanni, Erkkadu, Salem, Nagercoil and Ooty. He prepared the scene mahazars of the lodges wherein the victim was allegedly subjected to sexual assault.

29. Ext.P2 is the scene mahazar of Golden Sands lodge at Velankanni. According to the IO, the accused had pointed out the said lodge to him.

30. Ext.P7 is the seizure mahazar of Royal Resort, Erkkadu. Likewise, he prepared Ext.P8 mahazar with respect to Sivasree lodge, Salem, Ext.P6 mahazar of Sahaya Matha Lodge, Nagercoil and Ext.P23, scene mahazar of the residential house of Palraj at Vellarada, Thiruvananthapuram.

31. He has also prepared Ext.P22 scene mahazar of Royal Paradise Lodge, Ooty. Ext.P17 is the scene mahazar prepared by him in the presence of witnesses showing the rented house at Ambattur.

32. He has also prepared Ext.P24 scene mahazar of Room No.106 of Hotel Melody Park, Kanyakumari. He has also seized the Guest Register of the said hotel as per Ext.P16 seizure mahazar. As per the said register, Room No.106 was occupied by the 1st accused. In that register, it was noted that two persons resided in the said room.

33. The Investigating Officer has seized the Guest Register of Golden Sands Lodge, Velankanni, through Ext.P25. The said register would show that room No.504 was occupied by the accused from 03.09.2009 to 05.09.2009.

34. Likewise, he has seized the Guest Register of Royal Resorts, Erkkadu, as per Ext.P27 seizure mahazar. The Investigating Officer has also seized the relevant register of Sivasree Lodge, after preparing Ext.P9 seizure mahazar. In the register, it is noted that two persons (one male and one female) had resided in the said lodge on 05.09.2009. In that register, the name of the 1st accused and his mobile number (9600179320) were also noted.

35. The Investigating Officer has also seized the register of Sahaya Matha Lodge, Nagercoil, wherein the accused has resided with the victim. In the said register, it is noted that room No.9 was occupied by two persons.

36. The evidence of the Investigating Officer would clearly prove that the 1st accused had taken the victim to numerous places in Tamil Nadu and resided there. The hostility of the independent witnesses to the seizure mahazars and scene mahazars, by itself, is not a ground to reject the prosecution story in toto, in our view. It is pertinent to note that those hotels and lodges referred to above are pointed out by the 1st accused himself. The evidence of the victim that she was taken to different lodges by the appellant is sufficiently corroborated by the evidence of the Investigating Officer and the seizure of relevant registers at the instance of the appellant. The seizure of relevant registers is one of the crucial and vital links to connect the appellant with the crime.

Defence Version

37. The 1st accused filed a detailed written statement under Section 313(5) of Cr.P.C. In the said statement, it is contended that PW4 had been subjected to sexual harassment by her male relatives and that she had voluntarily left her home and lived in concealment to escape from such abuse. The allegation that he kidnapped the girl on 28.08.2009 and continuously raped her till 13.10.2009 is incorrect. The prosecutrix got acquainted with the accused while they attended the prayer in the church. It is stated that the prosecutrix, due to her acquaintance with him, informed through phone that she was going to surrender before the JFCM, Vanchiyoor, Thiruvananthapuram. As per the information of the prosecutrix, the accused reached the court, and without any basis, the police arrested him. It is further mentioned in the statement that Ext.P14 mahazar is a false document and the materials seized through the mahazars are not genuine. It is stated that when PW4 was surrendered before the court, no material objects were with him except Ext.P4 complaint. Hence, the seizure of material objects is under suspicion. The non-examination of PW4 immediately after the alleged occurrence caused prejudice to him. It is denied that the accused Nos. 2 to 5 were his friends and they assisted and aided him in the alleged crime. Ext.P34 FSL report is not helpful to the prosecution, since no DNA test was conducted by the investigating agency to prove the origin of sperm and blood detected in the materials subjected to analysis. Ext.P18, the birth certificate of the prosecutrix, is not genuine. During 2009, the prosecutrix had the physical appearance of a girl aged more than 18 years. The police officials did not investigate the complaint lodged by the prosecutrix against her male relatives. It is also stated that, pursuant to Ext.P4, the complaint lodged by the victim girl, no investigation was conducted by the Police. He is falsely implicated in this case.

38. Apart from the mere assertions in the written statement, no evidence is adduced by the accused in support of his contention. The evidence of PW1 and PW4 would clearly establish the falsity of the defence version. It is pertinent to note that there is no reason why a 14 and a half year old minor girl would falsely implicate the 1st accused in a crime of this nature. The learned Sessions Judge, after appreciating the entire evidence, took the view that the defence version is false and highly improbable. We find no reason to disagree with the said conclusion.

39. Another contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the non-conduct of DNA test to ascertain who is the real perpetrator of the crime is fatal to the prosecution case. In view of the unequivocal evidence of the victim about the prolonged sexual assault by the 1st accused at numerous places, the non-conduct of DNA test by the prosecution is not a serious infirmity to throw away the prosecution narrative.

40. The last but not least submission is that the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded by the trial court is highly excessive and harsh. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the incident was in the year 2009. The maximum punishment that could be awarded under Section 376 IPC, at that time was imprisonment for life. No reason was stated by the learned Sessions Judge for awarding the maximum punishment. It would be profitable to extract Section 376 as it stood before 03.02.2013, which reads thus:

                  “376. Punishment for rape.—(1) Whoever, except in the cases provided for by sub-section (2), commits rape shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may be for life or for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine unless the woman raped is his own wife and is not under twelve years of age, in which cases, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both:

                  Provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than seven years.

                  (2) Whoever,—

                  (a) being a police officer, commits rape—

                  (i) within the limits of the police station to which he is appointed; or

                  (ii) in the premises of any station house whether or not situated in the police station to which he is appointed; or

                  (iii) on a woman in his custody or in the custody of a police officer subordinate to him; or

                  (b) being a public servant, takes advantage of his official position and commits rape on a woman in his custody as such public servant or in the custody of a public servant subordinate to him; or

                  (c) being on the management or on the staff of a jail, remand home or other place of custody established by or under any law for the time being in force or of a woman’s or children’s institution takes advantage of his official position and commits rape on any inmate of such jail, remand home, place or institution; or

                  (d) being on the management or on the staff of a hospital, takes advantage of his official position and commits rape on a woman in that hospital; or

                  (e) commits rape on a woman knowing her to be pregnant; or

                  (f) commits rape on a woman when she is under twelve years of age; or

                  (g) commits gang rape,

shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may be for life and shall also be liable to fine:

                  Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment of either description for a term of less than ten years.”

41. The learned counsel, by referring to Section 376 before the amendment of 2013, submitted that the trial court is not justified in awarding the maximum punishment.

42. We have gone through the reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge in awarding the maximum punishment to the 1st accused. The learned Sessions Judge took note of the fact that the 1st accused was a Government Servant and a well-educated man. He was aged more than 36 years at the relevant time and belonged to an economically forward class. It is further noted that the 1st accused has challenged the entire police system by his acts. Considering the reasons stated in the judgment, we are of the considered opinion that the trial court is justified in awarding the maximum punishment to the appellant.

43. It is pertinent to note that the 1st accused has kidnapped a minor girl aged 14 and a half years, a student of Xth standard, under the guise that if she attended certain prayers in a church, she would get blessings from God and thereby would be able to secure high marks in the Xth standard examination. The appellant took her to numerous places, abused her sexually against her will by applying force and putting the victim in fear of causing hurt. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances and evidence of this case, we feel that the appellant deserves no leniency in the award of sentence.

Conclusion

44. On a careful consideration of the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, we are of the view that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The version of the victim can be classified as of sterling quality, wholly reliable, natural and truthful. Her version is also corroborated by the medical evidence. The defence story of false implication is highly improbable.

45. The learned Sessions Judge, after a meticulous scrutiny of evidence, both oral and documentary, has arrived at a proper conclusion. The appeal is devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed.

In the result,

(1) The Crl.A. No.1456/2019 is dismissed.

(2) The impugned judgment of the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha in S.C. No.514/2011 dated 07.12.2019 is confirmed.