K.PRABHAKARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused two in number, who are a couple, were prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of Indian Penal Code. Both of them were found guilty on both counts. A1, the husband was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 366 read with Section 34 of IPC and he was awarded a sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. A2, his wife was sentenced to undergo one year of rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 366 read with 34 of IPC and she was also found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 109 of IPC. She was also directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/ -, in default of payment of which, she had to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. It is also directed that if the fine amount was realised, the entire amount shall be paid to the victim as compensation.

(2.) PW 1 is the victim in this case. She was aged 25 years at the relevant time. She was residing with her parents. Going by the prosecution allegations, the accused had close acquaintance with the family of the victim. The accused persons attended the engagement ceremony of the victim on 14.09.2001. Thereafter, on 20.09.2001, it is alleged that the first accused came to the house of the victim and sought her aid to be a by -stander for his wife, who according to him, had to undergo an operation. Even though the victim initially was disinclined to go along with A1, considering the acts done by the accused for the benefit of the family of the victim, she went along with him. The allegation is that on reaching the official quarters of A1, she was given a drink which made her drowsy and then it is stated that she was ravished. It is also alleged that the second accused took her photographs. The trauma, according to the prosecution allegation, continued for four days and she was finally let off on 25.09.2001. She was threatened with dire consequences in case she revealed the incident to anybody. It is also alleged that the incident was conveyed over phone to the would be of the victim namely Ramesan and the marriage between PW1 and the Ramesan was called off. That led to the filing of the complaint.

(3.) THE court before which the final report was laid took cognizance of the offences. Finding that the offences are exclusively triable by a court of sessions, the said court committed the case to the Sessions Court, Kasaragod. The said court made over the case to Additional Sessions Court, Adhoc -I, Kasaragod for trial and disposal.