JOSHY K.J. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is at the instance of accused No.1 in S.C.No.1/2022 on the files of the Special Court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences ['POCSO Act' for short hereinafter] and he assails judgment dtd. 30/9/2024 in the said case.

(2.) As on 25/5/2026, this Court appointed Advocate Gajendra Singh Rajpurohit as the State Brief to argue the appeal on merits since there was no representation for the learned counsel for the appellant on 21/5/2026 and 25/5/2026. When the case was posted for disposal on hearing the State Brief, on today, Advocate M.G.Sreejith, the learned counsel for the appellant appeared and submitted that he would argue the appeal. Accordingly, Advocate M.G.Sreejith and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard in detail. Additional points urged by Advocate Gajendra Singh Rajpurohit also have been considered. Perused the verdict under challenge and the evidence available.

(3.) The prosecution case is that at 11 a.m on 20/7/2019, the 1st accused, by misusing his authority as Manager of the 2nd accused, had brought the victim, a minor into the room on the south-eastern portion of the first floor of the building by name 'Pranavam' at Kaloor- Vattapparambu-lane, which was taken on lease by the 2nd accused for running treatment centre. Thereafter, he laid the victim forcefully on the treatment bed and thereafter inserted an oval shaped penis like orange instrument on a vibrating machine. Thereafter on lowering her pants and undergarments, the 1st accused forcefully placed the vibrating machine on her vagina in the vibrating condition. The further allegation is that the 1st accused also threatened the victim that she would not divulge the same to anybody, if so, she would be depicted as a bad girl in the Society and thereby the 1st accused committed the offences punishable under Ss. 376, 354B as well as 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and under Ss. 3(b), 4, 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act. The 2nd accused is also incorporated in this crime on the allegation that he failed to inform the occurrence to the authorities though he was informed of the same by the victim. Thus the 2nd accused alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Sec. 19(1) r/w 21of the POCSO Act.