Kerala High Court
Sanal Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 2 December, 2025
Crl.A.No.738 of 2022 1 2025:KER:92585
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
ND
TUESDAY, THE 2
DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA,
1947
CRL.A NO. 738 OF 2022
AGAINST
THE
JUDGMENT
DATED
08.06.2022
IN
SC
NO.1061
OF
2018
OF
ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT
COURT
&
SESSIONS
COURT,
ERNAKULAM
FOR
THE
TRIAL
OF
CASES
RELATING
TO
ATROCITIES
&
SEXUAL
VIOLENCE
AGAINST
WOMEN & CHILDREN)
APPELLANT
/ACCUSED IN CUSTODY:
ANAL KUMAR
S
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O. K.N.PILLAI, GIRISH BHAVAN,
MYLAPPARA KARA, MYLAPPARA VILLAGE,
KOZHENCHERRY TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689641
Y ADVS.
B
SRI.P.MOHAMED SABAH
SRI.LIBIN STANLEY
SRI.SADIK ISMAYIL
Crl.A.No.738 of 2022 2 2025:KER:92585
MT.SAIPOOJA
S
SMT.R.GAYATHRI
SRI.M.MAHIN HAMZA
SMT.SAFIYA AKBAR
SHRI.FAIZEL K.
RESPONDENT/
COMPLAINANT:
TATE OF KERALA
S
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
Y ADVS.
B
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SMT.T.V.NEEMA
THIS
CRIMINAL
APPEAL
HAVING
COME
UP
FOR
FINAL
HEARING
ON
02.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.A.No.738 of 2022 3 2025:KER:92585
J U D G M E N T
Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.
This appeal, filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is preferred by the sole accused in S.C. No. 1061 of 2018 on the fileoftheAdditional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam. In the above case, the appellant was prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Codeand Section 4 read with Section 3(a) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 2. Bythejudgmentunderchallenge,theappellantwasfoundguiltyofthe offences punishable under Section 366 of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of ₹25,000, with a default clause. He was also found guilty of theoffenceunderSection376(1)oftheIPCand was sentencedtoimprisonmentforlifealongwithafineof₹1,00,000,withadefault clause. Prosecution case 3. Accordingtotheprosecution,PW4,thefatherofPW5,thesurvivor,isa native of Uttar Pradesh and was employed in an establishment in Ernakulam. It is stated that in May 2013, the appellant, alongwithotheremployeesofthecompany, Crl.A.No.738 of 2022 4 2025:KER:92585 travelled to Uttar Pradesh to attend the marriage of a colleague and resided in the house of PW4 during that period. Afterthemarriage,asPW5wantedtovisitKerala, they all travelled together to Kerala in the month of June 2013. The appellant,who was married and had two children, offered to takePW5tohisresidencesothatshe would have the company of his children. PW5, who stayed in the house of the appellant for a few days, didnotenjoyherstaythere.PW4subsequentlydecidedto sendPW5backtoUttarPradesh.Uponbeinginformedofthis,theManager,acertain Ravikumar, expressed a desire to speak with PW5. PW4 agreed to send PW5 tothe Manager through Rahul, an acquaintance. At that time, the accused arrived on a motorcycle and offered to take PW5 to the Manager's residence. As the accused insisted, PW4 permitted him to take the child. The prosecution alleges that the accused representing that they are going to the house of theManager,insteadtook thechildtothebusstand,parkedhisbikeandtravelledinabusandreachedPazhani in Dindigal District, in the State of Tamilnadu. The prosecution stated that the appellant took a room at Saravana Lodge at Pazhani. On 16.06.2013atabout2.00 pminroomNo.5onthefirstfloorofSaravanalodgeatPazhani,theaccusedisalleged to have committed rape and aggravated penetrative sexualassaultonthevictimgirl andtherebycommittedtheoffences.Itisfurtherallegedthatafterstayingtherefora day, they returned back to the Ernakulam bus stand on 19.06.2013, whereupon he was arrested by the police. Crl.A.No.738 of 2022 5 2025:KER:92585 Registration of the FIR and initial investigation 4. In the meantime, PW4 furnished Ext. P8 complaint, on the basis of whichthepoliceregisteredExt.P9F.I.R.alleginganoffenceunderSection363ofthe Indian Penal Code. The investigation was thereafter taken over by PW8, theStation House Officer, Kalamassery Police Station. On 19.06.2013, he arrested the accused alongwiththevictimattheKSRTCbusstand,Ernakulam.Ext.P10isthearrestmemo. The motorcycle bearing registration No. KL-29-6738, which was found parkedatthe bus stand, was seized under Ext. P1 mahazar. 5. Subsequently, a report incorporating Sections 366A and 376A of the IPC and Section 3(a) read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act was forwarded to the Court.Theaccusedwasproducedbeforethemedicalofficer,andapotencycertificate was obtained. Thereafter, Ext.P12 report was submitted before the Court, incorporating the actual address and other relevant details of the accused. 6. The survivor was then taken to a Gynaecologist for medical examination. Based on the information provided by the accused, the investigation teamproceededtoDindigulDistrictintheStateofTamilNadu.Aspointedoutbythe accused, Room No. 5 of Saravana Lodge was inspected and Ext. P13 mahazar was prepared.Afterperusingtheregisterandpreparingthemahazar,thelodgeledgerwas returned to its owner. Crl.A.No.738 of 2022 6 2025:KER:92585 7. The jeans and top worn by the victim at the time of the alleged occurrence were seized under Ext.P5 mahazar. The jeans and shirt worn by the accused were seized under Ext.P6mahazar.Thereafter,theinvestigationwas taken over by PW9, the Circle Inspector of Police, Kalamassery. After completion of the investigation, the final report was laid before the jurisdictional Court. Committal and trial proceedings 8. Thecommittalproceedingswereinitiated,andthecasewascommitted to the Court of Session. The matter was thereafter made over to the Additional Sessions Judge for trial. When the charge was read out to the accused, hepleaded notguiltyandclaimedtobetried.Inordertoprovetheprosecutioncase,9witnesses wereexaminedasPWs1to9.14documentswereexhibitedandmarkedasExts.P1 to P14. 3 material objects were produced and identified as MOs 1 to 3. After the closureoftheprosecutionevidence,theincriminatingcircumstancesappearingtherein were put to the accused under Section 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. He denied all the incriminating material and asserted that he was innocent of all allegations. Findings of the trial court 9. The learned Sessions Judge, after evaluating the evidence adduced through PW4, the father, and PW5, the survivor, came to the conclusion that the Crl.A.No.738 of 2022 7 2025:KER:92585 prosecution hadfailedtoestablishbyplacinganyreliablematerialonrecordthatthe survivorwasaminoratthetimeofincident.Consequently,theaccusedwasacquitted of all charges under the POCSO Act. However, placing reliance on the evidence of PW4,thefatherandPW5,thevictim,whichwereheldasreliable,itwasheldthatthe prosecution had established its case beyond the shadow of doubt and accordingly found the accused guilty and convicted him. Submissions of the appellant 10. Smt. Sai Pooja, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the finding of guilt entered by the learned Sessions Judge is wholly unsustainable. According to the learned counsel, there is no reliable or cogent evidencetoestablishthatthesurvivorwasaminoratthetimeoftheallegedincident. Shepointsoutthat,evenacceptingtheprosecutionversion,thesurvivorisallegedto haveaccompaniedtheaccusedon15.06.2013.However,PW4,thefather,hassetthe law in motion only on 18.06.2013. The prosecution has not offered any satisfactory explanation forthisdelayofmorethanthreedays.ShefurthersubmitsthattheFirst Information Statement was not duly proved, as the signature of PW4 was not obtainedonthedocument.Accordingtoher,theprosecutionhavinglaidthechargeby incorporating Section 366 of the IPC, instead of Section366AoftheIPC,whichwas thereintheFIR,wouldonlymeanthateventheinvestigatingagencywasunsurethat Crl.A.No.738 of 2022 8 2025:KER:92585 the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged occurrence. It is submitted that evidence is lacking as to the mode andmannerinwhichtheaccusedandthevictim had travelled together, the places that they had stayed thereafter and such other relevantaspects.Itissubmittedthatotherthantheevidenceofthevictimwhichwas discrepantinmaterialparticulars,therewasnootherevidenceworththenametolink theaccusedwiththecrime.Inordertofallintothecategoryofasterlingwitness,the evidence tendered by the victim must be consistent from the inception till the end, and it should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. The said criteria will not be satisfied, contends the learned counsel. Accordingtothelearnedcounsel,whentheconvictionisbasedonthesoletestimony of the prosecutrix and the medical evidence does not support the case of the prosecution/prosecutrix, and the deposition of the prosecutrix is full of material contradictions and no independent witnesses have been examined, it is not safe to convict the accused solely on such testimony of the prosecutrix. Relying on the opinions stated in Medical Jurisprudence by Dr. Umadathan, the learned counsel submits that unless the hymen is expressly recorded to be elastic, an inference of penetrative sexual assault cannot be sustained. The learned counsel has placed profuserelianceuponthedecisionsofthisCourtinRajuv.StateofM.P.1 aswellas Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi)2 to substantiatehis contentions. 1 [(2008) 15 SCC 133] 2 [(2012) 8 SCC 21] Crl.A.No.738 of 2022 9 2025:KER:92585 Submissions of the Prosecution 11. Inresponse,thelearnedPublicProsecutorsubmittedthatthelearned Sessions Judge, after evaluating the evidence, has concluded that the evidence tendered by the father as well as PW5, the survivor, had a ring of truth. Merely because there are no external injuries on the victim, it cannot be saidthatshewas not subjected to sexual abuse. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that under Section 375A of the Indian Penal Code, the offence of rape would be attracted if a personpenetrateshispenistoanyextentintothevagina,mouth,urethraoranusofa woman and makes her to do sowithhimoranyotherperson.Inthecaseonhand, the evidence of PW5 is emphatic that she was subjected to multiple attempts of sexual abuse by the accused. According tothelearnedPublicProsecutor,thereisno reasontodoubttheversionofthevictim,whoaccordingtoher,fallsintothecategory of a sterling witness. ThelearnedPublicProsecutorhasreliedontheobservationsin Ranjit Hazarika v. State Of Assam3 as well as State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh4, and it was argued that the Apex Court has reminded that the courtsmust, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting woman will come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rapeonher. 3 [(1998) 8 SCC 635] 4 [(1996) 2 SCC 384] Crl.A.No.738 of 2022 10 2025:KER:92585 ReliancewasalsoplacedontheobservationsinRajuandOthersvStateofMP 5, and it was argued that ordinarily the evidence of a prosecutrix should not be suspected and should be believed and if the evidenceisreliable,nocorroborationis necessary. Analysis 12. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the records. 13. Thefirstquestioniswhethertheprosecutionhasestablishedthefact thatthevictimwasachildatthetimeofoccurrence.PW4,inhisevidence,statedthat PW5wasbornintheyear1999andthatshewasstudyingintheVIIIstandard.Inher evidence, PW5 stated that she was born on 12.07.1999. However, when PW9, the investigating officer, was examined, he stated that PW4 had produced a school certificateandthesamewasseizedasperamahazar.However,nosuchmahazarwas brought in evidence. The case records also did not reveal the production of any certificate. After perusal of the records, the learned SessionsJudgehasobservedas under. "Thecaserecordsdoesnotshowtheproductionoforiginalcertificate andphotocopyofamarklistnotattestedseeninthecasebundleand 5 [(2008) 15 SCC 133] Crl.A.No.738 of 2022 11 2025:KER:92585 it is not marked as not properly authenticated." (sic). 14. Inthecaseonhand, theincidenttookplaceon16.6.2013andinthatview of themattertheprovisionsofJuvenileJustice(CareandProtectionofChildren)Act, 2000 would apply. As observed by the Apex Court in Jarnail Singh v. State Of Haryana6 thoughtheRulesframedundertheJuvenileJustice(CareandProtectionof Children)Act,2000applystrictlyonlyfordeterminationoftheageofachildinconflict withlaw,thestatutoryprovisionsthereincanbethebasisfordeterminingtheageof evenachildwhoisavictimofcrime.UnderRule12oftheJuvenileJustice(Careand Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, the procedure to befollowedindeterminingthe ageofajuvenilehasbeensetout.Thefollowingarethedocumentaryevidenceinthe sequence as mandated in Rule 12(3) of the said Rules : (3) In every case concerning a child orjuvenileinconflictwithlaw, theagedeterminationinquiryshallbeconductedbythecourtor the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining - (a)(i)thematriculationorequivalentcertificates,ifavailable;andin the absence whereof; (ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof; (iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal 6 (2013)7 SCC 263 Crl.A.No.738 of 2022 12 2025:KER:92585 authority or a panchayat; (b) and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause (a) above,themedicalopinionwillbesoughtfromadulyconstituted MedicalBoard,whichwilldeclaretheageofthejuvenileorchild. In case exact assessmentoftheagecannotbedone,theCourt or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered necessary, givebenefittothechildorjuvenilebyconsideringhis/herageon lower side within the margin of one year. 15. In the case on hand, none of the certificates as detailed in the statutoryprovisionswereproducedbeforetheCourt.Itwasinthesaidcircumstances that the learned Sessions Judge has concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove the age of the victim. We agree with the findings arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge. 16. NowthequestioniswhethertheoffenceunderSection366and376ofthe IPC are attracted in the facts and circumstances. We shall deal with the evidence before arriving at any conclusion. 17. PW1istheWomanPoliceConstableattachedtotheKalamasseryPolice Station. She was examined to prove that the accused was apprehended while he arrivedattheErnakulamKSRTCBusStandalongwiththechild.ShealsoprovedExt. P1 mahazar prepared at the time of arrest. Crl.A.No.738 of 2022 13 2025:KER:92585 18. PW2 is an officer attached to the Kalamassery Police Station. He translated the statement of PW4, the father, to facilitate the recording of the First Information Statement. 19. PW3 is the Gynaecologist attached to the Government General Hospital,Ernakulam.SheexaminedPW5andstatedthat,onclinicalexamination,the hymenwasfoundtobeintact.Aswabandsmearweretaken,andsheissuedExt.P2 medical certificate. In Ext.P2, she recorded that her final opinion was reserved, pending the report from the chemical laboratory. She also asserted that no external injuries were noted on the body of the victim. Itispertinenttonotethattheseized items were never forwarded for chemical analysis, thereby leaving a crucial component of the medical investigation incomplete. 20. PW4 is the father of PW5. His statement was recorded with the assistance of an interpreter. He deposed that he had worked in an establishmentat Edappally in2013,thoughhewasnotawareofthenameoftheconcern.Heresided at Shantinagar along with 5-6 otherpersons.HeidentifiedtheaccusedinCourtand stated that the accused was the supervisor at his workplace.Theaccused,whohad come to Uttar Pradesh to attend a marriage, had stayed in his house. His daughter--whowasonvacation--wantedtovisitKerala.HereturnedtoKeralaalong with PW4 and the child in June 2013. The accused and his wife had offered to Crl.A.No.738 of 2022 14 2025:KER:92585 accommodate PW5 in their home, as the accused's daughter was of the same age. After permitting the child to stay with the accused, PW4 left for Karunagappally for work.Twodayslater,hereturnedtoErnakulam.HeinformedhisManager,Ravikumar, that he intended tosendhisdaughterbackhome.TheManagerwantedtomeetthe girl. PW4askedRahultotakehisdaughtertotheManager'shouse.Atthattime,the accused arrived on a bike and offered to take the child to the Manager's residence. After an hour, PW4 called the Manager and asked him whether his daughter had reached his home. He answered in the negative. PW4 called the accused, but his phonewasswitchedoff.Later,usinganotherphone,PW4managedtoreachhim.The accused stated that he would return shortly, but he did not doso.Onthenextday, whenPW4calledagaintheaccused,thephonewashandedovertohisdaughter,who cried over the phone. PW4 immediately informed the Manager, who advised him to lodgeapolicecomplaint.PW4thengaveastatementtothepolice.Hestatedthathis daughter was studying in the VIII Standard and was born in 1999. Later in the evening,theaccused,hiswife,theirchildren,andPW5werebroughttohishouseby thepolice.Incross-examination,itwaselicitedthatinhisstatementtothepolice,he failed to mention that in his earlier statement, he didnotmentionthathisdaughter hadstayedinthehouseoftheaccused.Regardingthedelayinreportingtheincident, PW4 stated that he had nothing further to say. Crl.A.No.738 of 2022 15 2025:KER:92585 21. PW5 is thesurvivor.Shestatedthatshewasbornon12.07.1999.She was 22 years of age at the time of her examination before the Court. She deposed that in 2013 her father was employed inKerala.Sheidentifiedtheaccusedwhenhe appearedonthemonitor.ShestatedthattheaccusedhadvisitedtheirhouseinUttar Pradesh to attend a marriage and had suggested to her father that PW5 could be broughttoKeralasincehisownchildrenwereofthesameage.UponreachingKerala, she initially stayed with her father and later stayedfor2-3daysinthehouseofthe accused,alongwiththeaccused'swifeandtwochildren.However,shedidnotlikethe stay and called her father asking to be taken back. She deposed that her father informed her she would be sent back to Uttar Pradesh. As the Manager wished to meet her prior to departure, PW4 sought the assistance of Rahul to takehertothe Manager's house. At that time, the accused came on abikeandofferedtotakeher. InsteadofgoingtotheManager'shouse,theaccusedtookhertotheBusStand.The accused kept his bike there and they boarded a bus. They travelledtheentirenight and reachedamountainousplacewithatemplenearby,whichshelateridentifiedas Pazhani. They stayed in a lodge room. After returning from visiting the temple, the accused locked the room,removedherclothes,anddespitehercriesandresistance, pushedherontothebedandrapedher.Shestatedthattheaccusedinsertedhispenis into her vagina. She felt severe pain. She stated that the accused repeated the act 2-3times.Shestatedthatbloodoozedfromherprivateparts.Sheidentifiedhertop Crl.A.No.738 of 2022 16 2025:KER:92585 andpantsasMOs1and2.Theyboardedabus,andshewastakentoaplaceneara lake. When she cried again, they boarded another bus and after travellingforsome time, when they disembarked, police men werestandingthere.Shestatedthatthey had stayed in the Pazhani lodge for only one night. She further added that she returned back to her father within two days after beingtakenawaybytheaccused. Shefurtherdeposedthatthepolicehadrecordedherstatementandshehaddisclosed the entire incident. SheidentifiedhersignatureinExt.P3statementrecordedbythe learnedMagistrate.Incross-examination,shestatedthattheyhadboardedthebusin theeveningandtravelledthroughthenighttoreachPazhani.Sheaddedthatshewas taken to a beach the next morning. She stated that she had narrated the entire incident to the Doctor. She also stated that she had no opportunity to speak to her father until she returned. She denied the suggestion of the accused that no such incident has ever taken place. 22. PW6 is the Doctor who issued the potency certificate of the appellant. 23. PW7 is the Civil Police Officer of Kalamassery. He was examined to prove that on 21.06.2013, he, along with the Investigating Officer and theaccused, had gone to New Saravana Lodge at Pollachi, where a mahazar was prepared after inspecting the lodge register. Ext.P7 is the seizure mahazar. 24. We shall now deal with the evidence. Asstatedearlier,thecrimewas Crl.A.No.738 of 2022 17 2025:KER:92585 initiallyregisteredon18.06.2023at10.45amfortheoffenceunderSection363ofthe IPCforkidnappingfromlawfulguardianship.FromtheFIstatement,itisevidentthat the information furnishedwasthatthedaughteroftheinformantwastakenfromhis house by the appellant at 5 pm on 15.06.2013. A specific question was put to the informant as to the delay in intimating the police, for which he did not furnish any. True, the first informant is not a native of theState. However,hewasworkingina concern at Ernakulam and the child was allegedly taken by the appellant on the pretext thatshewasbeingtakentomeettheManager,oneRavikumar.TheManager wasnotexaminedbefore Court.EvenanemployeeoftheconcerninwhichPW4was working was examined to establish that he was in fact working in Ernakulam in a company and that the appellant was his supervisor. The delay in lodging the FI statement, that too after his daughter went missing on 15.6.2013 throws serious doubt on the genesis of the incident. 25. An evaluationoftheevidenceofthevictimwouldrevealthathercase was that she was taken to Pazhani by bus on 15.06.2013, and that they travelled throughout the night. She claimed that they stayed at Pazhani for only one day. Thereafter, she was taken to a lake; and when she repeatedly cried, they boarded another bus and returned to Ernakulam. Most pertinently, she has no case that she and the appellant spent the night together on any day other than thenightof15th Crl.A.No.738 of 2022 18 2025:KER:92585 June. This creates a seriousandmaterialgapintheprosecution'scase.Accordingto the child, upon her return,shewasconfrontedbyateamofpoliceofficers.PW4,on theotherhand,initiallystatedthattheaccused,hiswife,hischildren,andPW5along withpolicemencametohishouseonthe19th,buthelatercorrectedhimselftosay that they had come to the Kalamassery Police Station. The victim, however, categoricallystatedthatontheseconddayaftershewastakenawaybytheappellant, she saw her father at the police station. If her version is to be believed, shewould necessarily have returned to Ernakulam on the 17th. There is absolutely no explanationastowhereshewasbetweenthe17thandthe19th,thedateonwhich, as per theprosecution,theappellantwasfoundatthebusstandwiththechild.This unexplained interval is a serious lacuna which severely undermines the prosecution case. 26. We shall then turn to the medical evidence to assess its consistency with the case of the prosecution. As stated earlier, PW5 was examined by a Gynecologistandnoinjurywasnotedandthehymenwasintact.Thespecificcaseof PW5isthattheaccused,anadultman,violatedherthriceonthe16th.Ifthatbethe case, there ought to have been tell-tale signsoftheabuse.TheDoctordidnotnote any external injuries, but the final opinion was reserved pending a report of the analysis of the vaginal smears and swabs. No such report is produced before the Crl.A.No.738 of 2022 19 2025:KER:92585 Court. If that be the case, the medical evidence does not support the case of the prosecution. The learned counsel advanced an argument that the document was suppressed because, if produced, it would not have supported the case of the prosecution. 27. The next issue is whether there is reliable evidence to establish that theaccusedtravelledtoDindigulDistrictbybusasalleged.Otherthanthetestimony of the victim, no independent evidence has been adduced to substantiate this fact. TheprosecutionalsoreliesonExt.P13mahazarpreparedbyPW8regardingRoomNo. 5ofSaravanaLodgeafterinspection.Astonishingly,nowitnesswascitedtoprovethat the accused had taken a room there on 15.06.2013, or that he stayedinthatroom accompanied by a minor girl. Evenacopyofthelodgeregisterwasnotproducedto demonstratethattheappellanthadstayedinRoomNo.5.Inotherwords,apartfrom theipsedixitofPW4andPW5,thereisnoevidencetoestablish(i)thattheappellant and PW4 were co-workers, (ii) thattheappellanttookPW5withhimon15.06.2013, (iii)thattheytravelledtoPazhani,(iv)thattheystayedinSaravanaLodge,or(v)that they returned by bus on 19.06.2013. We also note that there are serious inconsistenciesinthetestimoniesofPW4andPW5regardingthesequenceofevents, the dates of travel, the period of alleged stay outside Kerala,andthecircumstances underwhichthesurvivorwasfound.Thesecontradictionsstrikeattheveryrootofthe Crl.A.No.738 of 2022 20 2025:KER:92585 prosecution narrative. While PW5 emphatically stated that she met herfatheratthe police stationontheseconddayafterbeingtakenaway,PW4assertedthatthechild returned only on the fourth day and initially claimedthatshereturnedhome,notto the police station. His subsequent attempt to correct this statement only further erodesthereliabilityofhisversion.Whileshesaysthatshehadnooccasiontotalkto PW4whileshewaswiththeappellant,PW5statesthatshehadtalkedtohim,andshe had cried. These inconsistencies, viewed cumulatively with the absence of medical corroboration, the unexplained gap between 17th and 19th June, and the complete lack of documentary or independent evidence establishing travel, lodge stay, or movement outside the State, create a cloud of serious doubt over the prosecution story. The failure to produce the lodge register, the non-examination of any witness fromtheSaravanaLodge,andthenon-productionofthechemicalanalysisreportonly add to this doubt. 28. When the prosecution case restssubstantiallyonthetestimonyofthe child witness, the Courts are obligated to subject such evidence to careful scrutiny, particularly when material inconsistencies and omissions exist. In the present case, theprosecutionhasnotsucceededindispellingthereasonabledoubtsthatarisefrom therecord.Theevidentiarygapsarenotminororperipheral;theyrelatetothecoreof the prosecution narrative and therefore cannot be brushed aside. Crl.A.No.738 of 2022 21 2025:KER:92585 29. The Trial Court considered PW5 to be a "sterling witness" andplaced reliance on her testimony, treating the doubts raised by the defence as minor and inconsequential.However,theApexCourtinRaiSandeepv.State(NCTofDelhi) (supra) has categorically held that a "sterling witness"mustbeofexceptionallyhigh qualityandcredibility,suchthattheirversionisunassailable.Thetestimonyofsucha witness should be of such a nature that it could be accepted at face value, without hesitationordoubt.Indeterminingwhetherawitnessattainsthisstandard,thesocial status or background of the witness is wholly immaterial; what matters is the truthfulness, intrinsic reliability, andconsistencyofthetestimony.Thestatementofa sterling witness must remain consistent from the very inception starting from the initial complaint. The version must be natural, convincing, and incompleteharmony with the prosecution case, qua the accused. Any prevarication, embellishment, or wavering on material particulars disqualifies a witness from being placed in this elevated category. Further, such a witness must be able to withstand rigorous and prolongedcross-examination,leavingnoroomfordoubtregardingtheoccurrence,the identity of the perpetrator, or the sequence of events. Their testimony must also correlate seamlessly with the supporting evidence including the recoveries, material objects,forensicfindings,medicalreports,expertopinion,andthetestimonyofother witnesses. In essence, the testimony must form a flawless chain, similar to the standard required in cases of circumstantial evidence where no missing link can be Crl.A.No.738 of 2022 22 2025:KER:92585 tolerated. Only if the testimony satisfies this stringent benchmark can a witness be treatedasasterlingwitnesswhoseversionalone,withoutcorroboration,canformthe basis for conviction. In the present case, we are constrained to holdthatPW5does not satisfytheparameterslaiddownforasterlingwitness,particularlyinviewofthe serious inconsistencies, gaps, and contradictions identified earlier. 30. Asnotedearlier,althoughtheprosecutionallegedthatthesurvivorwas a child, the FIRwasinitiallyregisteredonlyunderSection363oftheIPC,relatingto kidnapping fromlawfulguardianship.Thereafter,areportwassubmittedtotheCourt incorporatingSections366Aand376AIPCandSection3(a)readwithSection4ofthe POCSO Act. However, when the final report was laid after investigation,thecharges includedSections366Aand376IPCandSection3(a)r/wSection4ofthePOCSOAct. Ultimately, the charge framed by the Court required the accused to answer for offences under Sections 366 and376(2)(i)IPCandSection4r/wSection3(a)ofthe POCSO Act. We have already heldthattheoffencesunderthePOCSOActcannotbe sustained,astheageofthevictimhasnotbeenprovedinaccordancewithlaw.Upon evaluating the entire body of evidence, we are of the considered view that the prosecutionhasmiserablyfailedtoestablishthechargesunderSections366and376 IPC as well. There is a complete paucity of legal, reliable, and cogent evidence to reach an irresistible conclusion regarding the guilt of the appellant. The medical Crl.A.No.738 of 2022 23 2025:KER:92585 evidencealsodoesnotsupportthecaseoftheprosecution.Evidencewhichoughtto have been produced to lend credibility to the testimony of the victim has been suppressed. The foundational facts necessary to sustain the conviction are absent, unsupported, or contradicted. In such circumstances, the conviction cannot be permitted to stand. Conclusion In the result, this appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant in S.C. No. 1061 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, is set aside. We acquit the appellant and direct that he besetatliberty forthwith, if his continued incarceration is not required in any other case. d/- S RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE d/- S K.V. JAYAKUMAR, JUDGE PS/30/11/2025