Victim’s Testimony Must Be of Sterling Quality to Be Sole Basis of Conviction: Kerala High Court Reduces Sentence of Pastor Convicted for Repeated Rape of Minor

Kerala High Court in a significant ruling modified the sentence of Sanil K. James, a pastor convicted for repeatedly raping a minor girl. The court upheld his conviction under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and Section 376(2)(i) and (n) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) but reduced his sentence from twenty years of rigorous imprisonment to ten years. Additionally, the court directed that this sentence would run concurrently with a previous conviction in another similar POCSO case.  

The case arose from allegations that the accused, a pastor in the Salvation Army Church, had sexually assaulted and raped a minor girl multiple times between December 2013 and January 2015. The victim, who belonged to a Scheduled Caste and later converted to Christianity, had been living with her maternal grandparents after the death of her father.   

The abuse came to light when, on February 2, 2015, the victim confided in her teacher, who immediately reported the matter to the Child Welfare Committee. Following an investigation by the Peechi Police, a case was registered, and in 2017, the Additional District Court, Thrissur, found the accused guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment.   

The appeal before the Kerala High Court raised crucial legal questions regarding the reliability of the victim's testimony, the proof of her age, and the appropriateness of the sentence imposed.  

The accused contended that the victim’s testimony lacked credibility and that no immediate disclosure of the abuse had been made. The court rejected this argument, observing that her statements had remained consistent throughout the proceedings. The bench noted, *“The evidence of a rape victim can be the sole basis of conviction, but it must be of sterling quality—natural, consistent, and leaving no room for doubt.”   

The defense further argued that the prosecution had failed to conclusively prove that the victim was under sixteen years of age, which was essential to sustain a conviction under Section 376(2) IPC. The court dismissed this contention, stating that even if the exact age had not been proven, the repeated sexual assault against the victim’s will was sufficient to establish guilt under Section 376(2)(n) IPC.  

On the question of sentencing, the court noted that at the time of the offense, the minimum punishment under Section 376(2) IPC and Section 6 of POCSO was ten years of rigorous imprisonment. Observing that a twenty-year sentence was excessive, the court stated, *“Having regard to the nature of the accusation and other facts and circumstances, ten years of rigorous imprisonment in place of twenty years would meet the ends of justice.”   

A key issue in the appeal was whether the sentence in this case should run concurrently with the accused’s sentence in an earlier conviction under POCSO. The accused had already been sentenced to ten years in prison in a similar case, and the High Court had previously modified that sentence from twenty to ten years. The court invoked Section 427(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which permits concurrent sentencing, and observed, *“Since the offenses in both cases were committed within the same timeframe, imposing consecutive sentences would result in a disproportionate sentence.” 

The Kerala High Court, while upholding the conviction, allowed the appeal in part. The court reduced the imprisonment term from twenty years to ten years and directed that the sentence in this case would run concurrently with the previous conviction. The judgment, delivered by Justices P.B. Suresh Kumar and Jobin Sebastian, modified the trial court’s ruling to that extent, emphasizing that sentencing should remain proportionate to the offense committed.  

The case underscores the principle that while a victim’s testimony can be the sole basis for conviction, it must meet the highest standards of credibility. It also sets a precedent for the application of concurrent sentencing in cases involving multiple sexual offenses committed within the same period.
 

Date of decision: 24 February 2025