CHANDRAMBETH RAJESH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 417 of Indian Penal Code. He was found guilty on both counts and was, therefore, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of which to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 376 IPC and was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 417 IPC. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. It was also directed that if the fine amount is recovered, the same will be given as compensation to PW1. Set off as per law was allowed.

(2.) PW 1 is the victim in this case. It appears that she developed an intimacy to the accused who was running a grocery and tea shop and he, according to the allegations, promised to marry her. The allegation is that the accused had occasion to meet the victim and on luring and enticing the victim with the promise of marriage, he had sexual intercourse with her on several occasions. Ultimately, even though the family of the accused had promised to go along with the marriage, they retracted from the promise and that resulted in Ext.P1 complaint being laid by PW1. Ext.P1 was recorded by PW10 who registered a crime as per Ext.P8 First Information Report. Investigation was taken over by PW13. He prepared Ext.P9 scene mahazar and recorded the statements of CWs 1 to 8. He had certain other documents also procured from the respective authorities. The investigation was continued by PW14. In the meanwhile, PW1 was examined by PW7 on 08.03.2004 and she issued Ext.P4 wound certificate. On arrest of the accused, he was subjected to potency test and Ext.P5 certificate was received by the investigating officer. PW14 completed the investigation and laid charge before 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. He only pointed out that he has not committed any act which would constitute an offence. He denied of having promised to marry the victim and having any physical relationship with her. It is also pointed out by him that his shop is very near to a library and office of CPM which are frequently visited by people almost throughout the day. On finding that the accused could not be acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C, he was asked to enter on his defence. But he chose to adduce no evidence.