SAHADEVAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The allegation is of rape of a minor girl, which is countered with an accusation of a spiteful retaliation for the rivalry on stage, that existed between the accused and the father of the victim, both artists, in an indigenous drama form. The accused also attempted to cast a slur on the morals of the victim, without any success.

(2.) When the matter was posted for hearing on 08.10.2021, as scheduled two months back on 12.08.2021, there was no appearance for the appellant-convict. We hence directed the Superintendent of Prisons to facilitate a video conference with the appellant-convict. On 12.10.2021 we interacted with the appellant-convict and offered him assistance through a Senior Lawyer. The appellant willingly agreed and Sri.P.Vijayabhanu, learned Senior Counsel, kindly consented to assist and agreed to do the appeal pro bono. After we passed the order, the learned Counsel, who was appearing for the appellant, appeared before us and informed us that he is ready to argue the matter. He also apologized for his absence, which, he explained was only due to the pandemic situation. The accused, but, expressed some reservation about the Counsel he engaged and his desire to have the assistance of a Senior Counsel, as suggested by us. In that circumstance, the learned Counsel agreed to relinquish the brief and it was also agreed by the accused that he has no complaint against the Counsel who was appearing for him. We hence posted the matter today for hearing after directing a State Brief to be appointed.

(3.) The offence alleged, was under S.376 of the Indian Penal Code [for brevity, 'the IPC'] and S.5 and S.6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [for brevity, 'the POCSO Act']. The accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rupees One lakh under S.6 of the POCSO Act with default sentence of R.I. for six months. By virtue of S.42 of the POCSO Act, there was no separate sentence under S.376 IPC.