SOUDA BEEVI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the first accused in S.C. No.7 of 2012 pending before the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Ad -Hoc) Fast Track -I Court, Pathanamthitta has approached this court again seeking relief. She stands accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 120B, 417, 420, 366 and 376(2)(g) and 342 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and under Sections 10, 24(b), (f) and (g) of the Emigration Act and Section 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.

(2.) The facts of the case and the involvement of the petitioner in the case have been narrated in detail in Annexure A2 which is an order in B.A.7664 of 2012 filed by the petitioner and which was dismissed by order dated 23.11.2012. It is therefore unnecessary to reiterate the facts in the present order.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that on going through the final report filed by the prosecution, and the materials relied on by them for casting liability on the petitioner, it is found that there are no materials to establish the role of the petitioner in the various offences alleged against her. It was submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution mainly relies on the evidence of C.Ws.9, 10 and 11 to establish the complicity of the petitioner. Referring to the statement of C.W.11, it was contended that in fact it goes against the prosecution case and it supports the case of the petitioner. The statement of C.W.11 is to the effect that two of her sisters were taken to Dubai by the petitioner herein and they were conveniently employed. Learned Senior Counsel pointed out that the allegation that the petitioner is in the habit of taking ladies abroad and throwing them into sex racket is not supported by any material. Learned Senior counsel emphasized that once the final report is filed, one needs to look into the evidence produced by the prosecution along with the final report only and if that be so, it could not be said that there are materials to show the involvement of the petitioner. Learned counsel also emphasized that none of the persons who are alleged to have ravished the victim in Dubai are either identified or made an accused in the case and as far as the petitioner herein is concerned, she could not be held liable for the offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. Relying on the decision reported in Priya Patel vv. State of M.P. ((2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 96), learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that under no circumstance a woman can be held liable for the offence of rape. Learned Senior Counsel also pointed out that even though there is an allegation that the petitioner had several passports, that allegation stands unsubstantiated by any material produced along with the final report. There are absolutely no materials, according to the learned counsel, to show that the petitioner has committed the offences punishable under the various provisions of the Emigration Act. Since the main offences alleged against the petitioners are neither supported by any material nor has support of law, the incarceration of the petitioner at the pre -trial stage is quite uncalled for.