JINSON Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the conviction of the appellant and the sentence imposed on him in S.C.No.604 of 2012 on the files of the Sessions Court, Thrissur.

(2.) The appellant is the sole accused in the case. The accused is the neighbour of the de facto complainant girl aged 17 years. The accusation in the case is that on 07.11.2011, at about 3.00 p.m., the accused came to the house of the de-facto complainant and knocked at the door; that the de facto complainant who was alone in the house then came out through the back door of the house and when the accused saw the de facto complainant, after questioning her as to the reason why she did not attend the betrothal ceremony of his sister, the accused caught-hold of the de-facto complainant from behind and took her forcibly from the courtyard of the house to the bedroom through the back door of the house and though the de facto complainant resisted the attempt of the accused and made a hue and cry, the accused overpowered her and committed rape on her. It is also the accusation in the case that the will of the de facto complainant was dominated by the accused for committing the said offence taking advantage of the fact that she belongs to a scheduled caste. Offences were therefore, alleged against the appellant which are punishable under Sections 376 and 450 of the Indian Penal Code (the IPC) and Section 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as it stood prior to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

(3.) On the accused pleading not guilty of the charges, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses as PW1 to PW13 and proved 17 documents as Exts.P1 to P17. The prosecution has also caused the witnesses examined on its side to identify MO1 to MO8 material objects. The accused was, thereupon, questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) as regards the incriminating evidence brought out by the prosecution. The accused denied the same and maintained that he is innocent. Since the trial court did not consider the case to be one fit for acquittal under Section 232 of the Code, the accused was called upon to enter his defence. The accused did not adduce any evidence.