KUNHALU @ BAPPUTTY Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused in this case was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 450 and 376 of Indian Penal Code. He was found guilty on both counts. He was, therefore, convicted and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under 450 I.P.C. He was also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for four years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 376 of I.P.C. The substantial sentences were directed to run concurrently and set off as per law was allowed.

(2.) P .W.2 is the victim in this case. Both the courts below have found that she is mentally deficient. She stays with her brother and his family. About two months prior to the filing of the complaint, it is alleged that on a day in the afternoon when she was all alone at home, the accused came to the house, dragged her into the lean-to of the house and ravished her. She did not reveal the incident to any person. Later on, when she missed her periods, she was taken for medical examination which revealed that she was pregnant. On being questioned by P.Ws.1 and 3, she revealed that she had been ravished by the accused. As per the allegations, there was a mediation talk between the families, in which initially the family of the accused agreed for a marriage between the two. Later on, it is stated that the family of the accused retracted from the promise and that ultimately resulted in P.W.1 lodging Ext.P1 FIS.

(3.) THE court, before which the charge was laid, took cognizance of the offences Finding that the case is one exclusively triable by a court of Sessions, the said court committed the case to Sessions Court, Palakkad under Section 209 Cr.P.C. The said court made over the case to Assistant Sessions Court, Ottappalam for trial and disposal. The latter court, on receipt of records and on appearance of the accused, framed charge for the offences punishable under Sections 450 and 376 of I.P.C. To the charge, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, therefore, had P.Ws. 1 to 19 examined and had Exts. P1 to P12 marked. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. regarding the incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence against him. He denied all those circumstances and maintained that he is innocent. He also stated that he was married and had five children and he was a casual labourer by profession. He denied having any physical contact with P.W.2. It was his stand that he was the manager of the properties of a close relative of P.W.1 and after the death of that person, there was a rift between the family of the said person and the accused regarding the surrender of properties. It was also pointed out by him that two of the relatives of the victim are police men and they, in order to wreak vengeance for not surrendering the property of the deceased, foisted a case on him.