The Kerala High Court has recently reaffirmed the conviction of a security guard found guilty of sexually assaulting an eight-year-old girl. The court determined that the consistent testimony of the victim, corroborated by her mother, constituted adequate evidence, even in the absence of official documentation verifying the girl’s age.
On April 10, Justice A Badharudeen rejected the appeal made by the accused, upholding the trial court’s decision that the individual had violated provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act as well as the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court not only confirmed the conviction but also the sentence of three years of rigorous imprisonment.
This case arose from an appeal by the accused, who was contesting a conviction and sentence that had been handed down by a special court in August 2015.
The court noted that when the victim and her mother testify regarding the child’s date of birth, and the accused does not challenge the child’s age during cross-examination, a conviction under the POCSO Act can still be upheld, even without documentary evidence proving the victim’s age.
According to the prosecution’s account presented during the hearing, the child resided with her family, including her parents and younger siblings, and often played in front of their apartment complex. The girl’s parents operated a tea shop nearby, where she was familiar with the accused, who served as the security guard and would frequent the shop. The prosecution further stated that in May 2014, while playing with friends outside, the accused lured the girl inside the gate under the pretense of showing her a camera, where he then assaulted her.
Immediately after the incident, the girl informed her mother, leading to the filing of a First Information Report (FIR) and a subsequent medical examination. The trial court ultimately declared the accused guilty under the POCSO Act and sentenced him to three years of rigorous imprisonment.
Displeased with this verdict, the accused sought to challenge the conviction in the Kerala High Court.
During the appeal, the accused’s counsel, Manju Antoney, argued that the prosecution did not satisfactorily establish the victim’s age, which she claimed is crucial in POCSO cases. She contended that this oversight led the special judge to err in determining the accused’s guilt under the POCSO Act.
In response, Senior Public Prosecutor Vipin Narayan A emphasized that both the survivor and her mother had testified that the girl was eight years old at the time of the incident, thus providing sufficient evidence of her age. He asserted that there was no basis for interfering with the earlier ruling on the grounds of age verification.
Richa Sahay serves as a Legal Correspondent for The Indian Express, specializing in demystifying the complexities of the Indian legal system. With a postgraduate degree in law, she utilizes her extensive legal knowledge to clarify technical court decisions for the public, ensuring that her audience remains well-informed about the dynamic legal landscape.
