BENNY S/O SEBASTIAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In respect of an incident which took place in the year 1999, a private complaint was laid in the year 2005 alleging forced sexual assault which was forwarded for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The victim, PW1 had filed the complaint. After investigation, final report was laid before the court concerned which took cognizance of the offence and on finding that the offence is exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, the case was committed to Sessions Court, Thodupuzha under Section 209 Cr.P.C. The said court made over the case to 3rd Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc - I), Thodupuzha for trial and disposal. The latter court, on receipt of records and on appearance of the accused, framed charges for the offences punishable under Sections 450 and 376 of Indian Penal Code. To the charge, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution therefore had PWs 1 to 10 examined and Exts.P1 to P8 marked.

(2.) 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. 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.

(3.) Mainly relying on the evidence of PW1, the victim, the court below came to the conclusion that the offences under Sections 450 and 376 IPC had been made out and accordingly convicted the accused for the said offences and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default clause of rigorous imprisonment for 1 = years under Section 376 IPC and also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default clause of rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 450 IPC. It was also directed that out of the fine amount, Rs.10,000/- shall be paid to PW1 as compensation. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently and set off as per law was allowed. The said conviction and sentence are assailed in this appeal.