GEORGEKUTTY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused faced prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code. After trial, he was found guilty of the said offence and therefore, convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000 and in default of payment of which to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven months. It was also directed that if the amount is realised, an amount of Rs. 4,000 will be paid to the prosecutrix PW1 as compensation.

(2.) THE incident which gave rise to the case occurred on 20.1.2005. PW1 is the victim. She resides with her husband and three children. As usual, on the date of the incident, her husband had gone for work and one of the children went to school and the other two to the Anganwadi. According to the prosecution, after the household work was over, PW1 decided to take a bath and she got into the bathroom of her house. The accused is alleged to have forced himself into the bathroom and in spite of the stiff resistance made by PW1, sexual assault was committed by the accused. PW1 informed the incident to her husband in the evening. On the next day, they went to the Police Station and laid Ex. P1 First Information Statement. PW 6 recorded Ex. P1 and registered a crime as per Ex. P1 (a) First Information Report. PW8 took over the investigation. The victim was sent for medical examination and she was examined by PW4 doctor who issued Ex. P2 certificate. PW8 went to the scene of occurrence and prepared Ex. P6 scene mahazar and seized M.O.I from the place of occurrence. He had the accused arrested and he seized the dresses alleged to have been worn by the accused at the relevant time i.e. M.Os 2 and

(3.) AFTER the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C regarding the incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence against him. He denied the circumstances and maintained that he is innocent. He filed a written explanation in which he has stated that he has been falsely implicated and the true facts have been concealed. According to him, PW1 and himself are neighbours. They have a common pathway. On 20.1.2005, according to him, at about 10.30 a.m., while he and DW1 were passing along the pathway leading to the house of the accused situated on the eastern side of the house of PW1, they happened to see PW2 coming out of the house of the victim. On seeing them, PW2 became nervous. The accused claimed that he cautioned PW2 not to repeat the visits. After that he claims to have gone for his work. The news of PW2 seen coming out of the house of PW1 became public, He says that on 21.1.2005, he conveyed the news to PW 3, the husband of PW1, the victim. While he was conveying the information, PW1 was present. She created a scene there and it is claimed by the accused that PW 3 beat her up in which she suffered injuries. Shortwhile thereafter, he happened to see PW3 leaving the house. The accused also claimed that while he was on his way for work, he saw PW1 coming along the road and going into the office of the crusher unit being run nearby and while he was waiting at the Clamattom junction, he happened to see PW1 mounting an autorickshaw and leaving the place. On the same day, while he was unloading metal from the lorry, he was arrested and only then he came to know that he had been made as an accused in the case. On finding that the accused could not be acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C, he was asked to enter on his defence. He had DWs 1 and 2 examined.