KARIKKOTH PRAMOD AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted. This appeal arises out of an order dated 15.02.2013 passed in Crl. Revision Petition No. 679 of 2002 and order dated 15.07.2013 passed in Crl. Misc. Appln. No. 3719 of 2013 whereby the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam has affirmed the conviction of the Appellants herein for an offence punishable under Section 366, Indian Penal Code and the sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment awarded to them. The First Appellate Court and the High Court in revision have set out the factual matrix in which the Appellants herein came to be prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. We therefore consider it unnecessary to re-capitulate the same over again. All that we need say is that the three courts below have concurrently held the Appellants guilty of the offence with which they were charged.

(2.) Mr. R. Basant, learned senior counsel appearing for the Appellants all the same took pains to take us through the evidence adduced at the trial in an attempt to show that the conclusion drawn by the courts below was against the weight of evidence if not perverse. We regret to say that we do not see any merit in that contention. The courts below have in our opinion rightly relied upon the statements of PW 1 the husband of the victim, PW 2 the sister of the victim who was accompanying the victim her at the time of her abduction and was an eye-witness to the incident as also PW 3 the mother of the victim who has deposed about the events relevant to the occurrence. There is in our opinion nothing intrinsically improbable about the version given by the witnesses nor is there any error or perversity in the view taken by the courts below for us to interfere in exercise of our powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. To the extent the courts below have found the Appellants guilty of the offence punishable under Section 366, Indian Penal Code therefore we find no reason to take a different view.

(3.) Mr. Basant then argued that the incident in question took place as early as in the year 1994 when the Appellants were in the age group of 23 to 28 years. None of the Appellants has had any criminal antecedents and that even according to the statements made by the victim before the Magistrate immediately after her return from the alleged abduction and confinement she was not molested or sexually abused. That apart according to the version of the prosecution the brother of Appellant No. 1 Pramod had brought the victim to her mother's place which according to learned Counsel suggested that there was no intention to cause any harm to her. It was submitted that looking to the totality of the attendant circumstances the Court could consider reducing the sentence suitably. There is in our opinion merit in that contention. The incident is nearly 20 years old. The Appellants were very young at the time of the alleged occurrence. The Appellants were also it appears known to the victim as they happened to be her neighbors. The Appellants version that the Appellant Pramod was in a relationship with the victim has not been established at the trial though such a relationship was indeed suggested in the course of cross-examination of the witnesses. It is also not in dispute that the Appellants were not charged with any attempt to physically assault or seduce the victim for any sexual favours.