SHIJIMON, S/O. THAMPI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 450, 376 and 377 of Indian Penal Code. He was found guilty of all the offences and accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 377 of I.P.C. He was also directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 450 of I.P.C. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. Set off as per law was allowed.

(2.) IN appeal, the lower appellate court found that the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. is not made out, but offence under Section 511 of Section 376 I.P.C. alone is made out and therefore, modified the conviction under Section 376 I.P.C. to one under Section 511 of Section 376 I.P.C. , and confirmed the conviction under Sections 377 and 450 of I.P.C. Accordingly, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for offence under Section 511 of Section 376, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- with default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 377 I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 450 I.P.C. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. Set off as per law was also allowed.

(3.) THE allegation is that P.W.10 happened to see the incident and her cry brought the neighbours to the scene and later on the information was passed on to P.W.1, who is the husband of the victim. He laid Ext.P1 first information statement, and crime was registered as per Ext.P1(a) FIR. Investigation was taken over by P.W.11, who recorded statements of witnesses, completed investigation and laid charge before court. The court, before which final report was laid took cognizance of the offence. Finding that the case is one exclusively triable by a court of Sessions, the said court committed the case to Sessions Court, Kottayam under Section 209 Cr.P.C. The said court made over the case to Assistant Sessions court, Kottayam for trial and disposal.