Published Oct 05, 2026 | 6:37 PM ⚊ Updated Oct 05, 2026 | 6:37 PM
The accused, the husband of the survivor’s maternal aunt, lived on another floor of the same house.
Synopsis: The Thiruvananthapuram Fast Track Special Court has sentenced a man to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and fined him ₹1 lakh for sexually assaulting his minor niece. The defence disputed her age and argued that the POCSO Act did not apply, prompting the prosecution to seek an ossification test. The test found her to be above 16 and below 18, supporting the prosecution’s case that she was a minor when the offence took place.
The Thiruvananthapuram Fast Track Special Court has sentenced a man to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹1 lakh for sexually assaulting his niece. An ossification test was crucial in establishing that the girl was a minor when the offence took place.
Special Judge Anju Meera Birla convicted the accused, the husband of the survivor’s maternal aunt, who lived on another floor of the same house. The case was registered at the Karamana police station in Thiruvananthapuram.
The offence took place on 12 June, 2024 when the accused came to the house to give breakfast and medicines to his father-in-law. The girl was preparing to leave for school when he sexually assaulted her in the hall.
She told a friend about the incident the same day. On the friend’s advice, she informed her mother and teachers. The matter was subsequently reported to the Child Welfare Committee and the police.
The prosecution told the court that the accused had sexually abused the girl on earlier occasions as well. She had not disclosed the earlier abuse because she feared it would cause conflict within the family. She came forward after the abuse continued.
Also Read: Woman allegedly drugged, gang-raped at Kochi spa after job offer; two held
The applicability of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act became a major issue during the trial after the defence disputed the girl’s age and claimed that she had attained majority.
The girl had been adopted by her parents, and there was uncertainty over her exact date of birth. The prosecution therefore sought an ossification test to establish her age. The court allowed the request and ordered the medical examination.
An ossification test estimates age by examining the development and fusion of specific bones through X-rays. In this case, the report was based on physical, dental and radiological examinations and concluded that the girl could be above 16 years and below 18 years.
The finding supported the prosecution’s case that she was a minor at the time of the offence. The court noted the importance of the medical age assessment as the accused had consistently disputed the documents produced to establish her age.
Special Public Prosecutor RS Vijay Mohan and advocate Surabhi P appeared for the prosecution.
(Edited by Dese Gowda)
