SASIKUMAR S/O VASUDEVAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this second round of litigation, the accused assails his conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He was convicted for the said offences and sentenced to suffer seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 376 of IPC and he was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with a default clause of six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Set off as per law was allowed.

(2.) PW1 is the victim in this case. PW2 is her father. According to the allegation, the victim was aged 13 years as on the date of incident as the date of birth is alleged to be 25.05.1980 and the incident is alleged to have taken place on 10.12.1993.

(3.) On the date of incident, the victim was returning from the school and on the way she happened to go to the vegetable shop run by the accused to buy some vegetables. As she was going home, it is claimed that she saw the accused coming on the cycle behind her. No sooner than she entered the house, the accused also is alleged to have got in. Thereafter, it is alleged that she was caught hold of and dragged to the nearby room and when she tried to raise her voice, her mouth was closed. She was made to lie on a mat on the floor and then she was ravished. It so happened that after committing the act, when the accused was going out, the father of PW1 had come home. He enquired what had transpired, PW1 narrated the incident to him. At the relevant time, her mother was not at home. She says that in the evening she along with her parents went to the Police Station and laid Ext.P1, First Information Statement. PW10 recorded Ext.P1, First Information Statement and registered crime as per Ext.P9, FIR. Investigation was taken over by PWs 11 and 12. The victim was examined by PW8, the doctor who issued Ext.P7 certificate. After the arrest of the accused, he was subjected to potency test and the Investigating Officer has without completing investigation laid charge before the court. Initially, it appears that the final report was laid before a Special Court which took cognizance directly and the accused was tried for the offences alleged against him. He was found guilty and sentenced to go various terms of imprisonment. The accused carried the matter in appeal before this Court as Crl.A.No. 855 of 1999. This Court by judgment dated 01.06.2006 set aside the conviction and sentence on the ground that the Special Court could not have taken cognizance without a committal as laid down in the decision reported in Gangula Ashok v. State of Andhara Pradesh, 2000 2 SCC 504 and Vidhyadharan v. State of Kerala, 2004 1 SCC 215 and remanded the case for proceedings in accordance with law.