RAVI S O KOCHAPPAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18th August, 1999 of the Sessions Judge, Thrissur, in S.C. No. 11/1998. The appellant was charged with the offences punishable under Ss. 493 and 496 of the Indian Penal Code and Ss. 3(l)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes {Prevention of Atrocities) Act. After the trial, the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant not guilty of the offences punishable under Ss. 493 and 496 of the Indian Penal Code and S. 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and he was acquitted of the offences. But the appellant was found guilty of the offence under S. 3(l)(xii} of the S.C./ S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and convicted him. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 50.000/-; in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 months. The order of conviction and sentence is seriously-challenged in this appeal.

(2.) The prosecution story runs in the following lines : P.W. 1, Lalitha, is a member of the Scheduled Castes belonging to Pulaya community. She is a member of the All Kerala Tailors Union. The appellant was also an active worker of All Kerala Tailors' Union and he was the Secretary of the Pavaratty Union of the said Union. As P.W. 1 had involved herself actively as a worker of the Tailors' Union,'she had become acquainted with the appellant. The appellant was in love with P.W. 1 and she was made to believe that the appellant would marry her. The appellant told P.W. 1 that they had to wait till the marriage of his brother and at last the marriage of the said brother was fixed. The marriage was to take place on 2nd December, 1996. The appellant asked P.W. 1 to accompany him when he went to Ernakulam to invite some of his relatives. P.W. 1 left her house on the morning of 24-11-1,996 and met the appellant at Guruvayoor from where they proceeded to Ernakulam in a bus. When they reached Ernakulam, they spent some time in the beach at Ernakulam.' As the public looked them with suspicious eyes they wanted to undergo a ceremony of marriage. The appellant took P.W. 1 to a temple at Ernakulam. He had purchased a rolled gold chain with a tali. The appellant tied the chain with tali around the neck of P.W. 1 in front of the temple, though the temple was closed at that time. Later they returned to Guruvayoor by bus. They spent the night in the house of P.W. 9, a close friend of both. P.W. 9 and her relatives were under the impression that the appellant and P.W. 1 were married and accordingly they were given all facilities. They had physical and sexual relationship at that night. On the next morning P.W. 1 and the accused went away from the house of P.W. 9 to their respective houses. After some days on coming to know that she was pregnant, P.W. 1 approached the appellant and told him of her consumption. Then the appellant suggested that the pregnancy could "be aborted. But, P.W. 1 was not willing to follow the said course. She informed her relatives about the alleged marriage, sexual relationship and the consumption. P.W. 1 lodged a complaint before the police at Pavaratty, Chavakkad. She also approached the Superintendent of Police, Thrissur and narrated the incident to Superintendent of Police. The Superintendent of Police asked P.W. 1 to go to the Circle Inspector of Police, Chavakkad and lodge a complaint. Accordingly P.W. 1 went to the Circle Inspector of Police, P.W. 5, and lodged Ext. PI complaint. P.W. 5 forwarded the complaint to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Paramangalam. P.W. 6 registered a crime under Ext. P5 FJ.R. P.W. 11, the Deputy Superintendent of Police took up the investigation in the case. After completing the investigation P.W. 11 laid the charge before the Court. The accused denied the charge. The prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 11, marked Exts. PI to P13 and identified M.Os. 1 to 3.

(3.) After the close of the prosecution evidence the accused was examined under S.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied the prosecution evidence and pleaded that he Is innocent. On a consideration of the evidence brought on record, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence under S. 3(l)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, convicted him and sentenced him as stated earlier.