Justice A. Badharudeen made the observation while dismissing a criminal appeal filed by an accused challenging his conviction and sentence for aggravated sexual assault of a minor.

The prosecution alleged that the accused sexually assaulted the victim, then aged 17, after taking her to the courtyard of her house and tying her hands to a jackfruit tree. The Special Court convicted him under the IPC as well as Section 4(1) read with Section 3(a) of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to ten years' imprisonment and a fine of ₹50,000.

The accused had relied, among other things, on evidence suggesting that he and the victim had been in a love relationship. The Court rejected the relevance of this circumstance.

“When the victim is a minor, love relationship or even consensual sex would have no relevance,” the Court held.

The accused had also argued that the alleged assault took place on November 17, 2014, whereas the First Information Statement was recorded only on December 25, 2015. According to the defence, the complaint was an afterthought following a separate case registered against him for assaulting the victim's father on December 24, 2015.

The High Court rejected the argument that the subsequent registration of the sexual assault case demonstrated false implication. The evidence indicated that the accused had allegedly assaulted the victim's father when the father questioned him about the sexual assault. Although that separate case was subsequently compromised, the Court held that the compromise by itself could not establish that the POCSO case was fabricated.

The accused further relied on the fact that the scene mahazar did not specifically record the presence of the jackfruit tree to which the victim allegedly had been tied.

The High Court found the discrepancy insufficient to reject the prosecution case. The victim had explained in cross-examination that some trees had subsequently been cut and removed. The investigating officer's evidence and the scene mahazar also referred to a root projecting in a “V” shape at the place of occurrence. Consequently, the Court held that the absence of a specific description of the jackfruit tree in the mahazar was not a ground to disbelieve the victim.

The Court placed reliance on the testimony of the victim and noted that her evidence was supported by other material, including the testimony of her paternal aunt and medical evidence.

The Court thus upheld the decision by the Special Court and noted that the Special Court had imposed the minimum punishment applicable to the offences and found no basis for reducing the sentence.

The appeal was hence dismissed, the conviction and sentence were confirmed, and the order suspending the sentence and granting bail was cancelled.

Case Title: Reji v State of Kerala

Case No: Crl.A 545/ 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 486

Counsel for Appellant: S. Shanavas Khan, S. Indu, Govind H. Nair

Counsel for Respondent: M.A. Shihab