REGHU, S/O KUMARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 450 and 376 of IPC. He was found guilty on both counts. He was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- with a default clause of 7 months rigorous imprisonment and also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- with a default clause of rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 450 of IPC. Sentences were directed to run concurrently. Set off as per law was allowed.

(2.) The incident which gave rise to the case occurred on 11.12.2000. On that day, as per the prosecution case, PW5, the mother of the victim namely PW3 had gone to attend the marriage of her son, Prakasan who is also the brother of PW3. PW3 is a handicapped lady who is unable to move about on her own. Therefore, on the date of incident, she remained alone at home. The allegation is that after the inmates of the house had gone for the wedding, while PW3 was alone at home, the accused is alleged to have come to the house, taken her inside, laid her on a cot and ravished her. When PW5, the mother returned after the wedding, she found her daughter in a disorganized manner. On enquiry, the incident was revealed to her. She informed her husband and later in the evening, they went and laid Ext.P4, First Information Statement. That is recorded by the Station House Officer. The then Station House Officer who registered crime as per Ext.P4(a), FIR. The investigation was taken over by PW9. He had the victim sent for medical examination. PW2, the doctor examined PW3 and issued Ext.P2 certificate. PW9 prepared Ext.P6 scene mahazar seized Mos 1 to 5 as per Ext.P7 mahazar which are the clothes said to have been worn by the victim at the time of incident. After arrest of the accused, he had him subjected to potency test by PW1, the doctor who issued Ext.P1 certificate. He had also seized the clothes worn by the accused as per Ext.P8 mahazar. He recorded statement of witnesses, completed investigation and his Successor in Office laid charge before the court.

(3.) The court before which the final report was laid, took cognizance of the offence. Finding that the offences are exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court, Kottayam. The said court made over the case to Additional Sessions Court, (Adhoc) - I, Kottayam for trial and disposal. The latter court, on receipt of records, framed charges for the offences punishable under Sections 450 and 376 of IPC.