(1.) The petitioner is the accused in L.P.No.27/2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mannarkad. The above case was re-numbered from C.P.No.130/2013 which was registered on the basis of the final report filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Agali, in Crime No.19/2011 of Agali Police Station. The offence alleged against the petitioner are under Sec. 376 Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Ss. 3(1)(xii), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
(2.) The accusation against the petitioner is that by offering the false promise of marriage, he indulged in sexual relationship with an Aadivasi lady from 1/3/1995 to 1/7/1997 and impregnated her, leading to the birth of a baby girl on 5/4/1997. The offence came to light during the course of the anti human traffick drive undertaken in Attapadi area of Palakkad District during the year 2011 at the instance of the Rural District Police Chief. The victim gave a statement to the Sub Inspector of Police, Agali, that the petitioner got acquainted with her when he came to the Aadivasi hamlet where she was residing, for the collection of medicinal herbs. It was stated by the victim that she used to travel along with the petitioner who was closely associated with her cousin in the collection of medicinal herbs. According to the victim, the petitioner had indulged in sexual intercourse with her under the promise of marriage from 1995 onwards. It is also stated that the petitioner and the victim had resided together at the place called Tirur in Malappuram District for a period of more than 1' years. According to the victim, she was brought back to her residence by the petitioner during the seventh month of pregnancy, and that the petitioner had met the expenses of the treatments related to her delivery. However, according to the victim, the petitioner who left her after three months from the date of her delivery, did not return or take care of her and her baby. It is on the basis of the above statement of the victim that the crime was registered. The investigation was taken over by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Agali, who later on laid the final report alleging the commission of the aforesaid offences. As the petitioner did not appear before the learned Magistrate, coercive steps were initiated against him. Finding that the presence of the petitioner could not be procured even after steps under Ss. 82 and 83 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the case was transferred to the Long Pending Register.
(3.) In the present petition, the petitioner would contend that the inordinate delay in the registration of the crime has not been explained by the prosecution, and that the victim failed to identify the house where she is said to have resided along with the petitioner, for about 1' years. It is also stated that the petitioner is bedridden due to paralysis for the past several years and that he is not able to stand, walk or speak. It is the further contention of the petitioner that he was found to be incapable of performing sexual act in the potency test conducted at General Hospital, Changanacherry on 23/8/2013. Another challenge raised by the petitioner against the maintainability of the prosecution is that there is no legal sanctity for the identification of the petitioner by the victim.