GIREESHAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused, who faced trial for the offence punishable under Section 511 of 376 of the Indian Penal Code, was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. He was therefore, convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of which to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 354 IPC. It was also directed that if the fine amount was realised, the entire amount shall be given to the victim, PW2 as compensation. Set off as per law was allowed.

(2.) PW 2 is the victim in this case. The accused is her neighbour as also PW3 who is closely related to PW1. PW2's parents died long ago and she was residing with her grand parents. On the date of the incident i.e. on 20.05.2004, in the morning, the grandparents had gone to the hospital and PW2 was alone at home. She was trying to cook rice. When she found the accused outside the house, she enquired about his presence. But except for a smile, the accused did not reply. Feeling odd, PW2 went inside the house. Short while thereafter she came out to the lean to the house where the rice was being cooked to see whether the rice has been cooked. The allegation is that while she was attending to the rice, she was caught hold by the accused who dragged her to the room and made her to lie on a cot and then tried to ravish her. Her undergarments were removed and while the accused was attempting to rape her, PW3 who was residing nearby happened to come there and that aborted his action. On seeing PW3, it is alleged that the accused ran away from the place. Complaint was laid by PW2 on 21.05.2004 at about 10.30 a.m. PW6 recorded Ext.P2 First Information Station and registered a crime as per Ext.P2(a) First Information Report. He prepared Ext.P3 scene mahazar. He had PW2 sent for medical examination and PW1 doctor examined her and issued Ext.P1 certificate. From the place of incident, PW6 seized M.O.1 series of clothes alleged to have been worn by the victim at the relevant time. He recorded the statement of witnesses. His successor in office namely, PW7 completed the investigation and laid charge before the court.

(3.) ON finding that the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 are acceptable and they stand scrutiny, the court below found that the evidence discloses only commission of offence under Section 354 IPC and accordingly, the accused was found guilty of the said offence and the conviction and sentence as already mentioned followed. The said conviction and sentence are assailed in this appeal.