-
by Admin
19 December 2025 4:21 PM
“The Voice of a Child, When Truthful, Is Evidence Enough”, Kerala High Court, comprising Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian, delivered a reportable judgment in Criminal Appeal, dismissing the appeal filed by Abdul Karim and affirming his conviction and sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life for repeatedly raping his 13-year-old stepdaughter.
The Court upheld the findings of the Additional Sessions Court–I (Special Court for Atrocities Against Women and Children), Kasaragod, holding that the prosecution had proved the case beyond doubt and that the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act stood unrebutted.
The prosecution case stemmed from an incident that occurred in the early hours of 02 April 2018, between 4:00 a.m. and 7:30 a.m., at a rented residence in Panchathotti, Kasaragod. The accused was the stepfather of the victim, a minor girl aged 13 years, studying in the eighth standard.
It was alleged that the accused, wielding a knife, threatened the child and her mother with death, inflicted a knife injury on the child’s left palm, and thereafter committed rape in the presence of the mother. The prosecution further alleged that the accused had raped the child on an earlier occasion as well, thereby attracting the provisions relating to repeated aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
The victim lodged the First Information Statement within hours of the incident, leading to the registration of Crime No. 214/2018 at Kumbala Police Station. After investigation, the case was committed to the Special Court as S.C. No. 476/2018, where the accused was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life.
“A Prosecutrix Is Not an Accomplice”: Sole Testimony Held Sufficient
A central argument of the appellant was that the conviction was based substantially on the sole testimony of the victim (PW3) and that the prosecution case became doubtful since the victim’s mother (PW12) turned hostile during trial.
Rejecting this contention, the High Court reiterated the settled position of law that: “There is no rule of law that the evidence of a prosecutrix must be corroborated before it can be acted upon.”
Relying on authoritative precedents including Gurcharan Singh v. State of Haryana, Aman Kumar v. State of Haryana, and State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, the Court observed that a victim of sexual assault stands on a higher evidentiary pedestal than an injured witness, and insisting on corroboration as a matter of course would amount to “adding insult to injury.”
The Bench found that the testimony of PW3 was clear, consistent, natural, and free from contradictions, and that she withstood cross-examination without any material omission or exaggeration.
“Medical Evidence Leaves No Room for Doubt”
The Court found strong corroboration in the medical evidence adduced through PW2, the doctor who examined the victim on the same day of the incident.
The medical findings revealed: A fresh tear of the hymen at the 6 o’clock position, Fresh abrasions on the left palm and neck, and
Injuries consistent with recent vaginal penetration and knife assault, fully aligning with the alleged time of occurrence.
The Court noted: “The medical findings unequivocally corroborate the testimony of PW3 and clearly establish that the victim was subjected to penetrative sexual assault.”
“Hostile Mother Cannot Eclipse the Child’s Truth” Though the victim’s mother resiled from her earlier version and denied the occurrence of sexual assault during trial, the Court held that her hostility did not weaken the prosecution case.
The Bench noted that PW12 admitted crucial facts, including that she took the victim to the police station, that the victim was living in a shelter home out of fear of the accused, and that the accused had assaulted her on the same day.
The Court observed that: “The hostility of PW12 may be attributable to her desire to preserve her marital relationship, but it cannot outweigh the credible and corroborated testimony of the child victim.”
“Section 29 POCSO Shifts the Burden Once Foundational Facts Are Proved”
The High Court applied the reverse burden of proof under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, noting that the prosecution had conclusively established:
The minority of the victim, supported by unchallenged oral evidence and school records,The commission of aggravated penetrative sexual assault, and The identity of the accused, who was the stepfather and co-resident.
The Court held: “The statutory presumption under Section 29 stands attracted, and the accused has failed to rebut the same even by preponderance of probabilities.”
The complete absence of defence evidence further strengthened the prosecution case.
“Breach of Trust by a Guardian Is an Aggravating Circumstance”
On sentencing, the Bench found no justification for interference. It emphasized that the accused: Occupied a position of trust and guardianship, Committed the offence after putting the child and her mother in fear of death, and Repeatedly violated the bodily integrity of a minor.
The Court held that: “A guardian who betrays the child entrusted to his care commits a grave breach of trust, warranting the severest punishment known to law.”
Applying Section 42 of the POCSO Act, the Court upheld sentencing under Section 376(2)(f)(n) IPC, confirming imprisonment for the remainder of the natural life as proportionate to the gravity of the offence.
The Kerala High Court’s judgment stands as a firm affirmation of child-centric criminal justice, declaring that the truthful testimony of a child survivor, when supported by medical evidence, is sufficient to sustain even the gravest of convictions.
By dismissing the appeal and upholding the life sentence, the Court sent a clear and uncompromising message: sexual violence within the family, especially by a guardian, will invite the harshest response of law, and no dilution will be permitted on technical or emotional grounds.
Date of Decision: 17 December 2025
