KEVIN SIMSON Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Crl.M.C. has been filed to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.287/2021 on the file of the Fast Track Special Court, Attingal. The petitioner is the sole accused in S.C.No.287 of 2021. He faces charges under Ss. 376(1) and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is that the petitioner committed rape on respondent No.3 after making a false promise of marriage.

(2.) In the First Information Statement dtd. 11/11/2019, respondent No.3 alleged the following:- The victim was employed as Senior Analyst in a company in Technopark, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner was working as an Associate in the said Company. She fell in love with the petitioner in March 2018. The petitioner told the victim that he liked her and offered to marry her. When the petitioner repeatedly offered to marry her, the victim agreed to marry him. Both of them travelled together to many places. On 27/5/2019, they travelled to Kanyakumari and stayed at Indian Heritage Resort. He maintained close contact with her. The petitioner sexually ill-treated the victim. The petitioner also appropriated the gold ornaments that belonged to the victim. The petitioner intentionally cheated her.

(3.) She gave a statement to the Magistrate concerned on 21/8/2020 under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C., wherein she alleged thus:- The victim is a native of Coimbatore in Tamil Nadu. The petitioner pretended love towards the victim. He undertook to marry the victim. In April 2019, the victim was taken to Sreekaryam, Thiruvananthapuram in a car. While travelling in the car, he compelled the victim to have oral sex. In May (27/5/2019), as requested by the petitioner, the victim was taken to Kanyakumari. They took a room in the Indian Heritage Hotel. They stayed on the beach till 11 p.m. When they returned to the hotel, the petitioner made the victim take some juice. After having consumed the juice, the victim lost her memory. After that, the petitioner committed rape on the victim. In the morning, the victim found a bite mark on her neck. The petitioner made the victim have sexual intercourse with him after making a false promise of marriage. Later, he avoided the victim and refused to marry her. He returned a sum of Rs.80,000.00 and gold ornaments received from her. At the time of promising to marry the victim, the petitioner actually had no intention to marry her.