ARATHAN SADASIVAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant stands convicted by the second Additional Sessions Judge of Trivand-rum for offences punishable under Sections 363 and 376 I, P. C, and be has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under each of the countsi the sentences to run concurrently. His appeal is Criminal Appeal 270 of 1964. When the appeal was admitted notice was issued to him to show cause why the sentence awarded should not be enhanced and this is calendar revision 16 of 1964. The State has also filed criminal appeal 50 of 1965 against the acquittal of the accused under Section 366 I. P. C.

(2.) PW 2, Iromie is the daughter of Pw I James Amael. He was employed in Ceylon for a pretty long period, but in January 1961 returned to India and settled down in Avanakuzhi in Neoyattinkara taluk. His wife Jennette died about 12 years ago and he was living with his two daughters Pws. 2 and 3. His son Leslie is away for his studies at Nagercoil. Pw 1 was running a rice mill in the same compound about 15 or 20 feet to the north-east of his house. The accused was employed as the machine operator in the mill. Pw 8 is another employee. Some time before the occurrence, the accused became friendly with Pw 2. They used to carry on conversation, pass letters and soon it developed into an intimacy. According to Pw 1 she was having sexual intercourse with him. Pws. 2 and 3 used to sleep together in one room and the father was occupying another room. There were no servants or any others in the house. On the night of 5-4-1964 as usual Pws. 2 and 3 went to sleep. Next morning Pw2 was found missing. Pw 1 made enquiries and promptly went to Vizhin-jam police station and lodged the complaint Ex-P 1. A case was registered and the Sub-Inspector procee-ded to the house of the accused and found the accu-sed and Pw 2 there. The accused was arrested and Pw 2 was produced before the District Magistrate who ordered her detention in the rescue home as she was unwilling to go and live with her father. On 6-4-1965 the accused got a marriage udampady (agreement) prepared by Pw 10 a document writer and Pw 7 the Sub-Registrar came to the accu-sed's house and had the document registered. P W 12 an assistant surgeon attached to the Avittom Thirunal Hospital, Trivandrum examined PW 2 on 8-4-1964. She found the girl pregnant. She was also examined by PW 13 the Radiologist. Both Pws. 12 and 13 have given their opinion that the girl was below 16 years of age. Other witnesses were also examined in proof of her age. After com-pleting the investigation the accused was charge-sheeted.

(3.) THE accused admitted that he was employed under P. W. 1. According to him he did not Kidnap the girl, but she came voluntarily of her own accord to his house and they decided to marry and had a document registered. He would have it that she had come to the house prior to 5-4-64. He denied that the girl was aged only 15-1/2 years. No witnesses were examined in his defence.