Kerala HC Upholds 15-Year Sentence in POCSO Case; Rejects Challenges to Unsigned FIS and Victim's Age Proof
The Kerala High Court dismissed a criminal appeal against conviction under the POCSO Act, holding that an unsigned first information statement does not vitiate prosecution when the victim's oral evidence is consistent and credible.
Justice A. Badharudeen, sitting singly at the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, on 18 May 2026 dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 224 of 2025 filed by Rahiman, the sole accused, against his conviction by the Special Court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) at Palakkad. The Special Court had sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 15 years with a fine of Rs. 25,000 for aggravated sexual assault on an 11-year-old girl during the school summer vacation of April–May 2017. The High Court confirmed both conviction and sentence, finding no material omissions or contradictions in the victim's testimony and rejecting each of the accused's challenges, including the absence of signatures on the first information statement and the alleged failure to prove the victim's age.
The Offences Charged and the Special Court's Findings
The Special Court, functioning as the court under the POCSO Act at Palakkad, framed charges against Rahiman for offences punishable under Section 5(m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376(2)(l) of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution's case was that during April–May 2017, Rahiman lured the minor victim, aged 11 years, by offering her a toffee, took her to the hall of his rented house bearing No. 6/99 at Padinjarekkad, and committed aggravated sexual assault on her.
The Special Court examined 19 prosecution witnesses and marked 31 exhibits along with three material objects. No defence evidence was adduced. On appreciation of evidence, the Special Judge convicted Rahiman under Section 5(m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376(2)(9) of the IPC, sentencing him to 15 years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 25,000 and default rigorous imprisonment of six months. No separate sentence was imposed for the IPC offence in view of Section 42 of the POCSO Act.
Grounds Raised by the Accused in Appeal
Counsel for Rahiman raised several grounds before the High Court. The primary challenge was to Ext.P8, the first information statement, on the ground that neither the victim (PW13) nor her mother (PW12) had signed it. It was argued that the FIR registered on the basis of an unsigned statement was unreliable.
A second ground concerned the place of occurrence. The accused contended that PW13 described the place as the bedroom of building No. 6/99, whereas the police charge described it as a tiled house with a front portion roofed with sheet, creating a contradiction that cast doubt on the prosecution case.
On the question of age, counsel pointed out that no formal age determination was conducted, that the Child Protection Officers (PW10 and PW11) did not mention the victim's age, and that the birth certificate, which the mother said was issued by a hospital in Coimbatore and was in Tamil, was not produced before the court. The Investigating Officer (PW17) admitted he did not demand any document to prove age when the mother disclosed it, and that the birth certificate given by PW12 was not produced because it was in Tamil.
Additional grounds included unexplained delay in lodging the FIS, alleged non-compliance with Section 19 of the POCSO Act and Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a biased investigation with material witnesses left unexamined, and the submission that PW13's evidence was “flooded with omissions and contradictions.”
How the High Court Analysed the Evidence
Justice Badharudeen began with the victim's testimony. PW13 underwent a voir dire examination before the Special Judge, who was satisfied that she was competent to give evidence. She identified Rahiman as her neighbour, described how he had taken her to his house on the pretext of giving her a toffee, and gave a detailed account of the assault. She identified M.O1 (shirt), M.O2 (lungi), and M.O3 (underwear) as the clothes worn by the accused and herself at the time. She also identified Ext.P8 as the statement recorded by the police and confirmed she had given a separate statement before the Magistrate, which was marked as Ext.P11.
On the unsigned FIS, the court held that the mere failure or omission of the informant to sign the first information statement is not a reason to disbelieve the FIS or the entire prosecution case when the informant, while giving evidence, admits and supports the prosecution case in tune with the statement. PW13 had given candid evidence admitting the lodging of Ext.P8 and supporting it, together with Ext.P11 recorded before the Magistrate. The contention was therefore found to be of no serious consequence.
On age proof, the court found the challenge to be without basis. PW3, the teacher in charge of the headmaster at St. Sebastian's School, Palakkad, during 2017, produced Ext.P2 certificate before the Investigating Officer showing the victim's date of birth as 01.06.2006 and gave supporting evidence. PW16 produced Ext.P10, the extract of the school's admission register, and Ext.P10(a), the relevant page, both of which recorded the same date of birth. The court held that age was duly proved through this documentary and oral evidence.
On the place of occurrence, the court found no genuine ambiguity. Ext.P4, the scene mahazar prepared by the police, was supported by PW5, the mahazar witness, who gave details of the nature of the building during cross-examination. PW6, examined to prove the recovery mahazar Ext.P5, fully supported the prosecution case without any ambiguity regarding the house where the accused resided. PW7, a co-owner of the house, confirmed it was given on rent to the accused. Ext.P7, issued by the Secretary of Puthussery Grama Panchayat, certified that house No. 6/99 was in the name of Pushpalatha and Priju K.
The potency of the accused to commit the act was established through PW14, Dr. Rajesh, who examined Rahiman on 20.07.2017 at the District Hospital, Palakkad, and issued Ext.P9 certificate stating that there was nothing to suggest the accused was incapable of performing a sexual act.
The court also relied on the evidence of PW18, a counsellor at GVHSS, Kanjikkode, working under the Child Development Department. PW18 deposed that on 10.07.2017 she met the survivor and her mother at the Anganwadi at Sivaji Nagar. The survivor informed her that four persons in the locality had abused her and named them, including Rahman (the accused). PW18 further testified that the survivor disclosed that these persons had threatened to kill her if she spoke out, and that they gave her Rs. 10. PW18 prepared Ext.P20, a report signed also by Anganwadi teacher Sheela, and handed it to the ICDS Officer. PW19, the Child Development Officer in ICDS Malampuzha, produced Ext.P20 before the court and explained the procedure by which such reports were forwarded to the Child Protection Officer and then to the police.
Rejection of Procedural Contentions
On the alleged non-compliance with Section 19 of the POCSO Act and Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court found that compliance was evident from the records of the Special Court and that the accused had not raised any challenge regarding non-compliance before the Special Court. The contention was accordingly negatived.
The court found no material omissions or contradictions in PW13's evidence that could justify the characterisation advanced by defence counsel. The overall evaluation of evidence led the court to conclude that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the commission of offences under Section 5(m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376(2)(l) of the IPC. All contentions raised by the appellant were found unsustainable.
Sentence Confirmed
On the question of sentence, the court examined the 15-year rigorous imprisonment imposed by the Special Court against the nature and seriousness of the offences. No interference was found justifiable. The sentence was confirmed along with the conviction.
Order
The appeal was dismissed. The conviction and sentence under challenge were confirmed. The Special Court was directed to effectuate the sentence without fail, given that Rahiman had already been undergoing sentence. The Registry was directed to forward a copy of the judgment to the Special Court for information and compliance.