Kerala High Court Upholds Conviction for Sexual Assault on Minor; Clarifies Entire Electronic Record Must Be Produced Even If Only Portions Are Relied On
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Kerala, Single Bench of Justice Gopinath P. upheld the conviction and sentence of a physiotherapist for sexually assaulting a minor girl under his treatment, dismissing his appeal against the trial court’s findings. The Court confirmed that the victim’s consistent testimony and corroborative medical evidence proved the offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and the Indian Penal Code. In the course of its judgment, the Bench also clarified that when a party relies on an electronic record, the entire document must be produced, though specific relevant portions may be formally marked for reference.
The case concerned a physiotherapist who was accused of sexually abusing a girl with physical and mental disabilities while providing physiotherapy treatment at her residence. The incidents were alleged to have occurred between August 2014 and March 2019, during which the victim was initially a minor. The offences were investigated by the Crime Branch, Thiruvananthapuram, under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.
According to the prosecution, the accused, who initially worked at a private hospital and later operated his own physiotherapy centre, gained the trust of the victim’s family and committed repeated sexual assaults on the child. The abuse came to light when the victim, during remedial sessions with a psychologist, disclosed the incidents. The doctors informed the hospital management, which subsequently reported the matter to the authorities. The prosecution examined fifteen witnesses and produced several documents and forensic materials, including a medical examination report, a disability certificate, and a forensic analysis of mobile phones.
The defence argued that there was no credible evidence to prove that the alleged acts occurred when the victim was a minor. It contended that any interaction between the parties after the victim attained majority was consensual and that the complaint was motivated by professional rivalry. The defence also relied on electronic materials, including videos and messages, to suggest post-incident communication between the parties, asserting that the victim’s statements were inconsistent.
The prosecution maintained that the victim’s testimony was consistent and corroborated by medical and supporting witnesses. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the alleged acts constituted offences under Sections 376(2)(k), 376(2)(l), and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 6, 10, and 12 of the POCSO Act. The Court also considered the evidentiary rule governing the production of electronic records under the Evidence Act
The Court noted that the victim had clearly deposed that she was subjected to repeated sexual assault by the accused while she was a minor, beginning in August 2014. “The victim deposed that from August 2014, while she was studying in the 8th standard and was around 16 years old, the accused started sexually abusing her by displaying pornographic videos on his phone and asking her to do the same.”
The Court rejected the defence contention that inconsistencies in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. undermined her credibility, holding that “a reading of the statement in its entirety will indicate that the dates mentioned by the victim relate to certain specific acts of sexual abuse… and do not in any manner contradict her evidence in the box.” It concluded that there was no material contradiction warranting interference.
On the argument that professional rivalry had motivated the complaint, the Court found no evidence to support the claim, stating that “there is no material before this court to conclude so.” The Court also found that the defence’s reliance on medical records and psychological theories of hallucination and delusion was speculative and unsupported by evidence.
Quoting extensively from precedent, including Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan (1951) and State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain (1990), the Court reiterated that “a prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on par with an accomplice” and that corroboration is not legally necessary if the testimony is trustworthy. The Court held that the victim qualified as a “sterling witness” as described in Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012), observing: “Her version is consistent from the starting point till the end, withstands cross-examination, and contains no element of prevarication.”
The Court further stated: “The victim’s deposition is clear, lucid, and free from any embellishment that would require this Court to look for corroborating evidence. The conviction would be wrong only if the victim’s testimony were found unreliable.” Finding the testimony wholly reliable, the Court concluded that the prosecution had successfully established the offences beyond reasonable doubt.
Justice Gopinath P. concluded: “On a consideration of the submissions made across the bar and after perusing the records, I conclude that this appeal must be dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused.” The Court confirmed the substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years for each count under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and two years under Section 12 of the same Act. All sentences were directed to run concurrently.
“There is no scope for interference with the sentence of imprisonment as the learned trial judge has only imposed the minimum prescribed sentence of imprisonment in respect of the offences for which the appellant/accused has been convicted and the substantive sentence for each of the offences is to run concurrently.” The Court further held: “For all these reasons, I find no merit in this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed, confirming the conviction and the sentence imposed on the appellant.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Shri. Sreejith S. Nair, Sri. V.S. Thoshin, Sri. Satheesh Mohanan, Smt. Mahima, Sri. Akhil Suseendran, Shri. Sekhar G. Thampi, Shri. Abhishek Nair M.R., Shri. Sasthamangalam S. Ajith Kumar (Senior Advocate)
For the Respondent: Smt. Seena C., Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Shinoj v. State of Kerala
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:75636
Case Number: CRL.A No. 2389 of 2024
Bench: Justice Gopinath P.
