BAALAKRISHNAN @ NAZAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-accused was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. He was found guilty and was therefore convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight years. Set off as per law was allowed.

(2.) The victim namely, PW2 and her mother PW3 were residing along with the accused. PW2 and her brother were born to PW3 to one Muhammedkunju who passed away much before the incident occurred. Thereafter the accused, who was a Hindu, converted into Islam and married PW3. The allegation against the accused is that in the year 1999, on a Saturday prior to Christmas, as usual, PW3 and the accused had gone out for work.

(3.) The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Hosdurg take cognizance of the offence. On finding that the offence is one triable by the Court of Sessions, the said court committed the case to Sessions Court, Kasaragod under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The said court made over the case to Assistant Sessions Court for trial and disposal. The latter court, on appearance of the accused, framed charge for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution, therefore, had PWs 1 to 13 examined and had Exhibits P1 to P12 marked. M.Os 1 and 2 were also got identified and marked. The prosecution evidence was closed and the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied all the incriminating circumstances pointed out against him and maintained that he is innocent. He also stated that he and PW3 had been living as husband and wife for a long time and when he took up the residence with PW3, the victim was only 5 or 6 years of age and he used to treat her like his own daughter. He would say that he used to affectionate her so that she did not miss her father. He and PW3 used to go for casual work and they used to return only in the evening. While PW2 was studying in the 7th standard, he happened to see one Muneer, an autorickshaw driver by profession and two other persons on several occasions in their house. He cautioned PW2 in the matter and at the instance of the autorickshaw driver, he has been falsely implicated in the case. He would further say that, on a particular day, PW2 complained of headache and she was taken to the doctor. In the evening, when he returned from work, PW3 told him that PW2 is carrying. He would further say that PW3 insisted that he should go along with them to sign the papers for carrying out abortion for which he refused. Then he was threatened with severe consequences by PW3 and ultimately it resulted in a complaint being filed. He would say that he is totally innocent. On finding that the accused could not be acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C, he was asked to enter upon defence but he chose to adduce no evidence.