SANGEETH LOUIS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the sole accused in S.C. No.509/2024 pending before the Fast Track Special Court-II, Thrissur. This revision is directed against Annexure-A1 Order, which dismissed the petitioner's application (C.M.P. No.272/2024) under Sec. 227 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge.

(2.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Annexure-A5 F.I.S. was given on 9/8/2022 alleging an instance of rape on 20/7/2022. It was pointed out that initially Annexure-A4 F.I.R. was registered in respect of offences under Ss. 384, 376, 307 and 294(b) of the Penal Code. However, after investigation, the final report was filed only with respect to the offence under Sec. 376. Learned Counsel would submit that there are serious contradictions between the statement of the victim as given in the F.I.S, as also, in her statements recorded under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C., which was done twice on 10/8/2022 and 8/2/2023. The said statements under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C are produced as Annexure-A2 and Annexure-A3. Learned Counsel would elaborate that in Annexure-A5 F.I.S., it was stated that, on 20/7/2022, when the victim reached the office of the accused, who is a lawyer, there were two staff members and that the lawyer required the said staffs to get out of the room and then committed rape. However, in Annexure-A2 statement under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C., the witnesses does not refer to the presence of any staff at the office of the petitioner/accused on 20/7/2022. Secondly, it was pointed out that, in Annexure-A5 F.I.S, there is an allegation to the effect that the petitioner was administered poison by the lawyer, when she reached the office to get back her gold ornaments. However, in Annexure-A3 statement under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C., the version is that the poison was administered not by the lawyer, but by another staff. It is the further contention of the learned Counsel that the medico legal examination conducted on the victim would not indicate any rape, whatsoever. On such premise, the petitioner seeks discharge under Sec. 227 Cr.P.C.