State Of Kerala vs Xxxx on 20 November, 2025

[Cites 23, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

State Of Kerala vs Xxxx on 20 November, 2025

Impugning the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Kottarakkara, in S.C. No. 577 of 2023, the State of Kerala preferred this appeal under Section 419(1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

2. By the impugned judgment, the learned Special Judge has found the accused not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f), 376(2)(n) and 376AB of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 6 r/w 5(n), 6 r/w 5(l), 6 r/w 5(m), 10 r/w 9(l), 10 r/w 9(m), 10 r/w 9(n) and 19 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and acquitted them for the said offences.

The prosecution case 3. The victim in this matter is a minor girl aged 12 years. The accused are her parents. The prosecution case in brief is that the victim was subjected to aggravated penetrative sexual assault on numerous occasions by the 1st accused at their residence. Although the 2nd accused, the mother of the victim, had knowledge about the sexual abuse of her husband, she did not report the matter to the authorities.

                                                             2025:KER:88831

Crl.Appeal No.1152/2025             3
                            

      4.    On 25.02.2023, the victim lodged Ext.P1 FIS before PW14, the

Sub Inspector of Police, Kottarakkara. On the basis of Ext.P1 FIS, Ext.P14 FIR was registered. PW18( V S Prasanth), the Station House Officer, conducted the investigation and laid the charge before the 1st Additional Sessions Court, Kollam. Later, the case was made over to the Fast Track Special Court, Kottarakkara, for trial and disposal.

Proceedings before the trial court 5. The learned Special Judge has framed charge under Sections 376(2)(f), 376(2)(n) and 376AB of IPC and Sections 6 r/w 5(n), 6 r/w 5(l), 6 r/w 5(m), 10 r/w 9(l), 10 r/w 9(m), 10 r/w 9(n) and 19 of POCSO Act, after hearing the defence counsel and the Special Public Prosecutor. Thereafter, the charge was read over and explained to the accused. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. On the side of the prosecution, PWs. 1 to 19 were examined and Exts.P1 to P19 were marked. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances put to them and maintained their plea of innocence. No defence evidence was adduced. The Special Judge, after a detailed evaluation of the evidence on record, found the accused not guilty and thereby acquitted. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Special Judge, the State approached this Court under Section 419(1) of the Bharatiya 2025:KER:88831 Crl.Appeal No.1152/2025 4 Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor 7. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor, Smt. Neema T.V., submitted that the trial court has miserably failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by the prosecution in its correct perspective and acquitted the accused against the weight of evidence, facts, and circumstances of the case. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that PW1, the victim, gave unequivocal evidence about the aggravated penetrative sexual assault. The learned Special Judge acquitted the 1st accused/ respondent on surmises and conjectures.

8. The learned Public Prosecutor further argued that the evidence of PW1, the victim, was not shattered by cross-examination and she is a wholly reliable and trustworthy witness. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh1, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the sole testimony of the victim is sufficient to sustain a conviction in a sexual-assault case, if it inspires the confidence of the Court. Insisting on corroboration before relying on her statement would amount to adding insult to injury. The learned Public Prosecutor further argued that the testimony of a victim of sexual assault stands almost on par with that of an injured witness, and is, in fact, even more reliable to a certain 1 1996 (2) SCC 384 2025:KER:88831 Crl.Appeal No.1152/2025 5 extent.

9. The learned Public Prosecutor then pointed out that the conclusions and findings of the Special Judge are absolutely perverse. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Asha Ram2. She submitted that if the perpetrator of a sexual offence is the father, the crime is more grave and would come within the purview of 'rarest of rare'. The learned Public Prosecutor then submitted that the fact that PW8, the doctor who examined the victim, opined that there was no evidence of vaginal penetration and that no injury was noted on her private parts does not by itself mean that the victim was not subjected to sexual assault. Reliance was also placed on the judgment in Wahid Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh3, wherein the Apex Court opined that even a slight penetration is sufficient to make out an offence of rape and depth of penetration is immaterial.

10. The learned Public Prosecutor has also invited the attention of this Court to the judgments in State of Jharkhand v. Shailendra Kumar Raj @ Pandav Raj4, Rafiq v. State of U.P.5, State of Rajasthan v. N. K.6 and Sardul Singh v. State of Haryana7, and submitted that the sole 2 2006 AIR SC 381 3 2010 KHC 6059 4 2022 KHC 7146 5 1980 (4) SCC 262 6 2000 (5) SCC 30 7 AIR 2002 SC 3462 2025:KER:88831 Crl.Appeal No.1152/2025 6 testimony of the victim is sufficient to sustain conviction, without any corroboration .

11. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the trial court went wrong in finding that there is a possibility of false implication of the 1st accused in this case, and the evidence of the witnesses is not of sterling quality.

The submissions of the learned Counsel for the Respondent/1st Accused 12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/1st accused submitted that the trial court had appreciated the evidence on record in its correct perspective and arrived at a proper conclusion. It is submitted that the evidence of PW1 is contradictory and inconsistent with that of the Medical Officer, PW8, Dr. Vrindha K.S. In such circumstances, it is pointed out that the conviction cannot be legally sustainable only on the basis of the evidence of the victim.

13. We have duly considered the rival contentions urged by both sides and have carefully examined the records placed before us. 14. In M.G. Agarwal and M.K. Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra8, it was held that the findings of the trial court, which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their evidence, can be reversed only for very substantial and compelling reasons. While elucidating the 8 AIR 1963 SC 200 2025:KER:88831 Crl.Appeal No.1152/2025 7 principles that are to be borne in mind while dealing with a considered order of acquittal, it was held in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka9 as under:

"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:

(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.

(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.

(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.

(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law.

Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.

9
    (2007)4 SCC 415
                                                                          2025:KER:88831

Crl.Appeal No.1152/2025                     8

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.

        
         15.    In Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab10, the Apex Court is
observed as under:
                 "It is now well settled that though the High Court has full power

to review the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is founded, it is equally well settled that the presumption of innocence of the accused person is further reinforced by his acquittal by the Trial Court and the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses must be given proper weight and consideration; and the slowness of an appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses must also be kept in mind, and there must be substantial and compelling reasons for the appellate Court to come to a conclusion different from that of the trial Judge."

16. In Rahil v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)11, it is held that the appellate court would not interfere with the finding of the trial court unless the same finding is wholly perverse or against the weight of evidence on record. In the event, acquittal is based on findings that are reasonable and plausible. Appellate courts would be slow to interfere with the same as the presumption of innocence stands re-enforced by the acquittal.


10
     AIR 1957 SC 216
11
     2025 KHC 6611
                                                               2025:KER:88831

Crl.Appeal No.1152/2025             9
                            

      17.   According to PW1, the victim, the 1st accused, her father had

sexually abused her for a prolonged period. The first incident occurred while she was in the 1st standard. Later, she was subjected to sexual abuse by her father while she was studying in the 5th standard at GHS, Thalachira. According to the victim, the 1st accused inserted his genital organ into her vagina. She stated that she sleeps along with her parents. During the night, her father used to remove her entire clothes and insert his penis into her vagina. PW1 spoke about the incident to her cousin PW4 (Soorya) and she divulged the incident to her teacher also.

18. When her mother enquired about the matter with her father, he denied the incident. She further stated that she spoke about the incident to her another cousin, named Paru. She asserted that the second incident occurred two days prior to the Anniversary in her school. After watching the programs at the school, she did not return to her house. Instead, she proceeded to a place called Venchempu, where she fainted. The local people assembled there and informed the school authorities. She told her teacher that, due to the assault by her father, she chose not to return to her house. She further stated that on that day her father had inserted his penis into her vagina. She cried due to the pain. At that time, her father covered her mouth with his hand. 19. In cross-examination, she stated that she used to sleep with her parents and siblings in a mat on the floor. She denied the suggestion that she had filed a complaint against her father as directed by others.

                                                                 2025:KER:88831

Crl.Appeal No.1152/2025               10
                              

      20.     PW4 (Soorya) is the cousin sister of the victim. She deposed that

the victim told her about the sexual assault by her father. According to PW4, the incident occurred while the victim was studying in the 5th standard. The victim told her that due to the sexual assault of her father, she did not return to her house after watching the anniversary program at her school. During cross-examination, she stated that, on that day, she went to school along with PW1. She further stated that the victim told her that her parents used to scold her since she was not good enough in her studies.

21. PW5 (Beena) is the aunt of PW1. PW5 stated that PW1 went missing from the school and was later traced by the teacher. PW1 divulged the incident to her. PW1 told her that her father inserted his penis into her vagina. She spoke about the matter to accused No.2. When the accused No.2 asked about the matter with accused No.1, he had beaten her. Thereafter, the complaint was lodged before the police. PW5, in cross-examination, would say that she was residing in that house along with the victim and her parents, and there is only one bedroom in that house.

22. PW6 (Syamala) is the grandmother of PW1. The accused No.2 is her daughter, and the accused No.1 is her son-in-law. According to her, PW1 told her that she was sexually abused by her father. Further, PW1 went missing from her school and went to Venchempu and on the way, she fell due to dizziness.

      23.     PW8 (Dr. Vrindha K.S.) testified that she had examined PW1 on
                                                             2025:KER:88831

Crl.Appeal No.1152/2025             11

25.02.2023. The history as told by the patient to the doctor was that she was subjected to sexual assault by her father while she was sleeping along with her parents and siblings in their house. PW8 testified that the victim told her that she was subjected to penetrative sexual assault by her father by inserting his genital organ into her vagina. But, PW8 has not noted any external injury on her private parts. According to PW8, there was no evidence for vaginal penetration.

24. PW14 (Gigimol), the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Kottarakkara Police Station, recorded Ext.P1 FIS of PW1. PW15 ( Sajikumar S.) was the Headmaster of GHS, Thalachira. He proved Ext.P12, the extract of the school admission register of PW1. PW17 was the SI of Police, Kottarakkara Police Station, who registered Ext.P14 FIR on the basis of Ext.P1 FIS. PW18 conducted the investigation and laid the charge sheet. He had sent the victim for a medical examination. He seized the dress worn by the victim, as per Ext. P8 seizure mahazar.

25. During cross-examination, he deposed that in Ext.P5 Medical Certificate, it is mentioned that there was no evidence of recent vaginal penetration. Further, he added that he has not cited the siblings of the victim as witnesses.

26. The trial court, after a detailed evaluation and assessment of evidence, has acquitted the accused. Paragraphs 49 and 50 of the judgment would indicate the reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge in arriving at the 2025:KER:88831 Crl.Appeal No.1152/2025 12 conclusion. Those paragraphs are extracted hereunder:

"49. As regards the offences U/Ss.376(2)(f), 376(2)(n), 376 AB of IPC & Ss.6 r/w 5(n), 6 r/w 5 (l), 6 r/w 5(m) are concerned, it is already found that the medical evidence as well as the evidence of PW1 is not in consistant with penetrative sexual assault, though she stated the allegation of multiple penetrative sexual assault to the doctor. Likewise even though PW1 deposed about the sexual harassment of her father punishable U/Ss.10 r/w 9(l), 10 r/w 9(n) of POCSO Act, there is absolutely nо material available before court to find that the accused committed these acts on PW1. Further as regards sub-section (1) of section 19 of the POCSO Act. PW1 stated that she informed her mother A2 and also her teacher. What made the investigating agency to array A2 in this case is not revealed in this case. Like wise, so far delay in lodging of the FIR is concerned, I would say as per the prosecution version the incident came to light when PW1 fell down because of dizziness on her way to Venchempu, her relatives house and the case was registered. So, there is no fault or delay in lodging the FIR by PW1. The learned counsel for the accused by relying upon the decision of the the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Sasi v. State of Kerala (ILR 2022(1) Kerala 794) contended that if a reasonable doubt arises regarding the guilt of the accused, benefit of doubt cannot be withheld from the accused. From the forgoing evidence there is a genuine doubt regarding the veracity of the prosecution witnesses and upon considering the medical evidence of PW1. Hence there is absolutely no evidence forthcoming in this case to punish the accused.

In the decision Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh and Others (2016 (10) JT 332) it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that, "It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that, the 2025:KER:88831 Crl.Appeal No.1152/2025 13 guilt of the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts."

Further, in State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal (1988 (4) SCC 302) it was laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that, "A person has, no doubt, a profound right not to be convicted of an offence which is not established by evidential standard of proof beyond the reasonable doubt." In the instant case, I am of the considered view that this is a case in which the mother of PW1 and her mother and sister had exploited her daughter for filing a complaint against her husband by exploiting stringent legal provisions embodied in PoCSO Act.

50. Considering all these facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt by establishing the foundational facts constituting the offences alleged against him. The interested oral testimonies of PW1 and her close relatives alone cannot be accepted as the sole evidence to find the accused guilty since there exists issues between A2, PW5 and PW6. The legal presumption U/Ss.29 and 30 of the POCSO Act also cannot be applied in this case on the failure of the prosecution to prove the ingredients of the offences alleged. Thus I find the accused are not guilty of the alleged offences. The answers to the point Nos.2 to 8 for determination are resulted in negative."

27. One of the main reasons pointed out by the learned Sessions Judge is that the evidence of the victim( PW1) is inconsistent with the medical evidence of Dr. Vrindha (PW8). The trial court, placing reliance on 2025:KER:88831 Crl.Appeal No.1152/2025 14 the judgments in Sasi v. State of Kerala12, Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh and Others 13, State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal14, held that in the criminal jurisprudence, the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court was of the view that the non-citing and non-examination of the siblings of the victim is fatal to the prosecution case. The learned Session Judge disbelieved the version of PW1 and her close relatives.

28. The trial court, after a detailed evaluation of the evidence on record, has arrived at a conclusion that the interested oral testimonies of PW1 and her close relatives are deficient to fasten penal liability on the accused. The trial court, after a close scrutiny of evidence let in by the prosecution, rightly held that the medical evidence is inconsistent with the testimony of PW1 and acquitted the accused. The victim did not fall into the category of a sterling witness in view of the serious inconsistency in her evidence and the discrepancies with the medical evidence. The trial court, while acquitting the accused, has also noted that PWs. 5 and 6 are inimical to the 2nd accused and therefore, the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. Even after a careful scrutiny of evidence, we do not find any illegality/perversity or glaring mistake in the impugned judgment. The findings and conclusions arrived at by the trial court appear to be reasonable and plausible.

12
   (ILR 2022(1) Kerala 794)
13
   (2016 (10) JT 332)
14
    (1988 (4) SCC 302)
                                                              2025:KER:88831

Crl.Appeal No.1152/2025              15
                             

        In view of the above discussions, we hold that the appeal filed by the

State is not maintainable and the same is dismissed.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE Sd/-

K. V. JAYAKUMAR JUDGE BR/msp

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court