Kerala HC Upholds Father's Conviction For Rape Of Minor Daughter, Says Incident Not Implausible Merely Because Family Shares A Small Hut

The Division Bench comprising Justice PB Suresh Kumar and Justice Johnson John upheld the conviction stating that “merely for the reason that the family of the victim consisting of several members was residing in a small hut, it cannot be said that the occurrence as alleged by the prosecution is not possible especially in the light of the explanation offered by the victim in her evidence that the sexual assaults were committed by the accused when her mother was away for work and her siblings had gone out for playing”.

The father of the minor victim was sentenced for offences punishable under Sections 376 (punishment for rape) IPC and Section 5(j)(ii) (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) read with Section 6 (punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the POCSO Act.

The minor victim was studying at a residential school. As noted by the court, the first incident occurred on April 2016 and thereafter on two other occasions after the victim arrived home for the summer break following grade 11. The matter was placed before the Sessions Court which convicted the appellant based on the evidence placed before the bench. The Sessions Court had convicted the accused with sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each for all the offences. The sentence imposed under the POCSO Act was rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000. The substantive offences were to run concurrently.

The appellant submitted that the evidence tendered by the prosecution was highly improbable since the members of the family, including the victim and her four siblings resided in a small hut together. The bench rejected the appellant's arguments, referring to the explanation provided by the victim that the incident occurred when her mother was away for work and her siblings had gone out to play. The court also referred to the materials on record such as the blood samples and DNA profiles to confirm the offence of rape. 

As such, the appeal was dismissed and upheld the conviction of the father. 

"From the evidence aforesaid, it is established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused who is the father of the victim, committed penetrative sexual assault on her, as defined under Section 3 of the POCSO Act as also rape as defined under Section 375 IPC on the victim who was aged below 16 years, repeatedly. The finding rendered by the Special Court that the accused is guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f), 376(2)(i) and 376(2)(n) of IPC and Sections 5(j)(ii), 5(l) and 5(n) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, is therefore, in order."

Counsel for the Petitioner: Advocate Manju Antoney

Counsel for Respondent: Advocate Ambika Devi

Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala

Case Number: Crl. A No. 863 of 2022

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 69