NARAYANAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 'Gamekeeper turns poacher' is how the Hon'ble Supreme Court described instances of rape on children by their own guardians (State of Himachal Pradesh v. Asha Ram, (2005) 13 SCC 766). In the instant case, the victim is a young girl and the accused is her father, a clear case of 'Protector turning predator' as submitted by the learned Prosecutor.

(2.) The trial court convicted the accused based on the evidence led before it by way of fifteen exhibits and eleven witnesses. The defence marked one exhibit as a contradiction from the statement of PW4. Separate sentences for imprisonment for life under Sections 376 and 377 IPC and a fine amount of Rs.25,000/- each, with default sentence was imposed on the accused. The sentence was also ordered to be run concurrently. We heard the learned Counsel Lavaraj M.G. for the appellant and Smt. Ambika Devi, Special Government Pleader (Atrocities against women and children) appearing for the State.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the victim does not have a consistent case and this reveals the falsity of the allegations. It is pointed out that the mother and brother of the victim turned hostile. There is gross delay in the registration of the crime. The child had an affair with another person, which was objected to by the father and the complaint raised was a mere backlash. Without admitting the allegations or accepting the evidence let in, the learned Counsel would also pray for indulgence insofar as the sentences, especially since the allegation of rape is an embellishment in the evidence before court. The appellant relied on Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2020) 3 SCC 443 to argue that when there are material contradictions in the evidence led by the prosecution and there is a delay in lodging an FIR, a conviction cannot be sustained. Bhudeb Uchai v. State of Tripura, 2020 KHC 4378 of the Tripura High Court, State of Uttarakhand v. Subash, 2019 KHC 5450 and Indra Mani Thapliyal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2013 KHC 3138; both Division Bench decisions of the Uttarakhand High Court, were relied on to set aside the conviction and alternatively to argue for mitigation insofar as the sentence is concerned.