Robin Mathew v. State of Kerala

Criminal Law – Neither the accused nor the victim can be permitted to subvert a criminal trial by stating falsehood and resort to contrivances to make the trial a mockery.

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Ss. 4, 5 (f), 5 (j) (ii) r/w. 6 Penal Code, 1860 S. 376 (2) (f) Accused was the Vicar of Church – Offences of penetrative sexual assault and rape on a teenage girl of the parishThe victim girl used to go to the church to attend the Holy Mass the accused induced the victim girl to come to his room and he committed rape and penetrative sexual assault on her As a result, the victim girl became pregnant She gave birth to a male child From the very beginning, there has been attempt on the part of the family of the victim to save the accused, who was the vicar of the local church, from the clutches of law the victim was aged below 18 years and a child as defined under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act, when the accused had sexual intercourse with her Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court finds that awarding the appellant/accused a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for the offence under Section 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act would meet the ends of justice in the case.

Birth Register The entries in the birth register were made not on the basis of the parturition register but on the basis of the live birth report. Therefore, the availability or otherwise of the parturition register cannot cast a doubt on the entries in the birth register.

Evidence Law – Hostile Witness – the evidence of prosecution witnesses cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat them as hostile and cross examined them. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof.