FAISAL,PAPPALI DESOM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code. He was found found guilty on both counts. He was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with a default clause of six months for the offence under Section 376 of IPC. He is also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of 1,000/- with a default clause of one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 506 of IPC. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Set off as per law was allowed. If the fine amount was realized, 75% of the fine amount recovered shall be paid to the victim as compensation.

(2.) PW 1 is the victim in this case. She and the accused are neighbours. It is alleged that on the date of incident that is on 22.09.2004 in the evening, while the victim was working in the kitchen, the accused is said to have gone over to her house and told her that his mother wanted to see her. Believing the words of the accused, the victim is alleged to have gone to the house of the accused. When the victim reached the house of the accused, he was standing in the courtyard. As soon as the victim entered the house, the accused followed her and then bolted the door from inside. He closed her mouth and threatened with her dire consequences, if she made any sound. She was made to lie on the floor and she was ravished. Even though she resisted, she was over powered. When she returned home, though other inmates of the house were present there at that point of time, she, because of the threat meted out by the accused, did not reveal it to anybody. On the next day, she disclosed the incident to her mother. When she missed her menstrual period, on enquiry she had to reveal the incident to the members of the family and thereafter, Ext.P1, First Information Statement was laid. PW4 recorded Ext.P1, First Information Statement and registered crime as per Ext.P1(a), FIR. PW6 took over investigation. He had the victim sent for medical examination. PW2 is the doctor who examined the victim and issued Ext.P2 certificate. PW6 then prepared Ext.P5 scene mahazar and seized Mos 1 to 3 and handed over to him by Ext.P6 mahazar. Finding that the offence under Section 506(ii) is also made out, he had to file Ext.P7 report to that effect. He had the materials collected during investigation sent for forensic examination and obtained Ext.P8 certificate. Statements of witnesses were recorded and charge was laid.

(3.) THE prosecution therefore examined PWs 1 to 6 and had Exts. P1 to P8 marked. MOs 1 to 3 were got identified and marked. 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 also stated that the victim namely PW1 was in love with him and at her insistence, they had sex on several occasions. Later, it was realized that since she was much older than the accused, he could not marry her and therefore he expressed his inability to marry her. He would say that he has not committed any act as alleged. He also pointed out that his brother was implicated in a case accusing him of outraging the modesty of PW1 and his father's sister was also attacked. He would say that he has been falsely implicated in this case.