RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Faced with concurrent findings against the accused, this criminal revision petition has been preferred challenging the conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 450 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. He was convicted for both the offences and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of which to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 450 IPC and also 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 fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 376 IPC. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Set off as per law was allowed. PW1 is the victim in this case. Going by the prosecution allegations, she resides with her parents and she had put an end to her studies due to Epilepsy. On the date of the incident, i.e. on 03.09.1998, when her father had gone out for work and her mother had also gone for usual work and while PW1 was alone at him, the accused is alleged to have forced himself into the house and committed sexual assault on her. While the assault was going on, it appears that her father came and knocked at the door and when the door was opened, the accused ran out of the house. PW1 narrated what had transpired in the house to her father PW2. On the next day i.e. on 04.09.1998, PW1 along with her parents went to the Police Station and laid Ext. P1 complaint. Ext. P1 was recorded by PW12 who registered a crime as per Ext. P1(a) First Information Report. PW11 took over the investigation. In the meanwhile, PW1 had gone to the hospital and she was examined by PW6 doctor who issued Ext. P4 certificate. The investigating officer recorded the statement of witnesses and he had the accused arrested and sent him for potency test. He seized the dress worn by the victim and had the same sent for chemical examination and obtained Ext. P11 chemical analysis report. Scene mahazar was prepared and after completing the investigation, charge was laid before the court. The court before which final report was laid took cognizance of the offence. On finding that the offence is exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, the case was committed to Sessions Court, Palakkad. The latter court made over the case to Assistant Sessions Court (Addl.), Palakkad for trial and disposal. The said court, on receipt of the records and on appearance of the accused, framed charges for the offences punishable under Sections 450 and 376 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, therefore, had PWs1 to 14 examined and Exts. P1 to P11 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. He came forward with a case that he was not in station at the relevant time and he was elsewhere. On finding that the accused could not be acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C., he was asked to enter on his defence. He examined DWs 1 and 2 and had Exts. D1 and D2 marked.

(3.) On an appreciation of the evidence in the case, the trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused and therefore, found the accused guilty of the offences under Sections 376 and 450 IPC and the conviction and sentence as already mentioned followed. Disappointed, the accused challenged the matter in appeal as Crl. Appeal No. 50/2003 before the Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track-II), Palakkad. The said court, on an independent evaluation of the evidence, found no reason to take a different view from that of the trial court and confirmed the conviction and sentence.