XXX Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is arraigned as the accused in Crime No. 1160 of 2020 of Mathilakam Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Section 323, 506, 376, 376(2)(f), 354B, 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4, 3(b), 6, 5m, 5n, 5l of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has filed this application seeking pre-arrest bail.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is as follows: The survivor is a young girl aged only 11 years. The petitioner is her father. While they were residing in an apartment bearing No.XI/490(D) at Ala Desom on 15.12.2018 around 9 p.m he had subjected the minor girl to aggravated penetrative sexual assault, by inserting his finger into her vagina and when she resisted it she was slapped on her face and threatened her that if she disclose the incident to any one, he would kill her mother. Later on 20.02.2020 the petitioner had taken the girl and other family members for a trip to Munnar. He again committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the minor child while residing in that hotel at about 10.a.m on 20.02.2020. After the said incident also he threatened that her mother would be killed if she divulge the same to any one. Thus she was subjected to aggravated penetrative sexual assault by the petitioner and put her under threat and coercion from disclosing it to anyone.

(3.) According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, he is an NRI working in gulf country. While he was there, he met the mother of the victim child and they got married. She is a native of Hyderabad and not a Malayalee. Two children were born to them in the wedlock. But their marital life was not smooth and the relationship has strained gradually and then she shifted to Hyderabad along with the minor children. Thereafter, she demanded huge money and in order to pressurize and coerce the petitioner to yield to her demand, she had falsely foisted this case against him. The registration of the case was only because of the dispute between the husband and wife. In order to malign the petitioner, as well to extract money from him, on the advice of her lawyer she had plotted the plan and thus the case was registered incorporating serious offences under the provisions of the POCSO Act. He is absolutely innocent and he has not committed any offence against his own minor child as alleged by the prosecution. It is also pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel that he is suffering from very serious heart disease and he had even undergone angioplasty and even now is under medication. The case put forth by the defacto complainant is absolutely false and that is clear from the fact that the victim girl used to contact him regularly even after the alleged incident while he is abroad and that is clear from the WhatsApp conversions between them. If such incidents had actually happened, definitely the child would have been kept away from him. In fact the minor child might be suffering from the trauma as she has been coerced and pressurized by her mother to foist this false case against him, is the version of the petitioner.