VIJAYAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused in this case was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 511 of 376. But he was found guilty of the offence under Section 354 of IPC. He was therefore convicted to the said offence and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years.

(2.) PW 2 is the victim and PW1 is her mother. The incident is alleged to have taken place on 08.06.2003 at about 8.30 a.m. That was a Sunday. On that day, as usual, PW1 would say that she had sent PW2, her daughter to Madrasa. She had also handed over a letter to the person in charge of Madrasa to let PW1 to go home early. She expected the child to return by 8.15 am. But the child did not do so. She therefore asked her husband to go and see where the child is. By that time, the child had almost reached near home. According to the prosecution, the child along with her mother went for a wedding. On return, PW1 asked PW2 to go and study. She then told her mother about the incident that took place in the morning in which the accused was involved. It is alleged that while the child was coming from Madrasa, the person who is familiar to her and as it was raining, he asked whether he could share the umbrella. The person took the umbrella from the hands of the child and when they reached the barber shop, the person handed over the umbrella to the child and the child was on her way to home. The further allegation is that soon thereafter, a van driven by the accused halted near her and she was asked to get inside. When they reached the place near compound of one Balakrishnan Vaidyar, the allegation is that the accused came to the rear seat which was occupied by the victim and committed the offensive acts. She was asked to keep quite about the incident. The further allegation is that the victim was let to go near the shop of one Rajan and the accused went away with the vehicle. Coming to know about the incident, the father of the child made enquiries and came to know that it was one Vijayan who had taken the child. The next day, that is on 09.06.2003, PW1 laid Ext.P1, First Information Statement. That was recorded by PW10 who registered crime as per Ext.P1(a), FIR. He prepared Ext.P5, scene mahazar and had the victim sent for medical examination. The victim was examined by PW9 who issued Ext.P7 certificate. He recorded statement of witnesses and on 09.06.2003 according to him, at 3.00 pm he arrested the accused and had him subjected to potency test. He completed investigation and laid charge before the court.

(3.) AFTER the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence against him and maintained that he is innocent. His stand was that the police had come forward with a case in which he was made a scapegoat. Finding that he could not be acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C., he was asked to enter on his defence. He chose to adduce no evidence.