PRAMOD Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused in Sessions Case No. 5 of 1995 of the Assistant Sessions Court, Kozhikode, who stand convicted and sentenced under S. 366 I.P.C. read with S. 34 I.P.C., and whose appeal before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode stands dismissed through the impugned judgment, have come up in revision. The story narrated by the prosecution is stranger than fiction. This case unfurls the ordeals, which a 19 year old girl (hereinafter referred to as the 'victim girl') had to face in the hands of the petitioners, who were none other than her neighbours. The prosecution case is that, on 8.7.1994, while the victim girl along with PW2, who is her younger sister aged around 16, were on their way back to their house from Vellayikode temple, they were wrongfully restrained on the lonely road by the petitioners by demand that the victim girl should go along with them. Even though the victim resisted, and she along with PW2 made a hue and cry with a view to getting away from the clutches of the petitioners, there was nobody to their rescue. The third petitioner vanished from the scene and swiftly returned with an autorickshaw. All the three accused forcibly dragged the victim girl into the autorickshaw and they drove away. As she became totally frightened on account of the sudden untoward incident, which she least expected, the victim girl could not offer sufficient resistance. Same was the case with PW2 also, who stood shell-shocked, and she could not rescue the screaming victim, who was being' abducted, PW2, who was crying for her help, reached her house. Their mother, PW3, was not at the house as she was working as a Nursing Assistant at the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. The father of the girls, who was the husband of PW3, had deserted them and had gone away long back. When PW3 returned after her duty, during night after 8.30 p.m., the matter was reported to PW3. PW3, in turn, contacted PW1, who is the husband of the victim girl, and informed the matter. PW1 and the brothers of PW3 were frantically in search of the victim that night and the next day and night; but, they could not get any trace of the victim or the petitioners, and ultimately they decided to report the matter before the police.

(2.) On 10.7.1994, PW1 reported the matter before the Beypore police and furnished Ext. P1 First Information Statement, on the basis of which, crime No. 59/1994 was registered through Ext. P1(a) F.I.R. After about one week, A1, along with his relatives, brought back the victim to her house, dumped her there, and simply went away. As the crime was registered, she was produced at the police station, in turn, the police produced her before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-V, Kozhikode. From there, she went along with PW1, her husband, and they lived together. By the time the matter reached trial, the victim gave birth to two children in her wedlock with PW1. and then she committed suicide.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the concurrent findings entered by both the courts below. The main defence set up by the accused is that the girl was in love with the first accused and that, she had willingly gone along with the accused, on her own volition. Further, it was attempted to bring out a case that she had to commit suicide on account of the ill treatment from the part of PW1. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that the incident, even if admitted, could not bring out necessary ingredients to invite an offence under S. 366 I.P.C.