RAVEENDRAN @ MANIAPPAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed against the judgment in Sessions Case No. 250 of 2005 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court (Ad hoc) - I, Kalpetta. The appellant faced trial for the offences punishable under S.376(f) read with S.511 and S.377 IPC.

(2.) THE prosecution case against the appellant accused was that on 05/05/2005 at 1 p.m. the accused attempted to commit rape on PW 4, his own daughter aged 7 years in the bed room of House No. KP.2/74 situated at Nelliyambam, Nadavayal amsom within the limits of Kamblakkad Police Station and thereby committed the offences mentioned above. To prove the charge against the appellant accused, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 8 and produced Exts. P1 to P6 and MOs 1 and 2. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the defence. On closing the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under S.313 CrPC. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances and stated that the case was foisted against him by PW 3, his second wife. He further stated that he fell in love with PW 3 who was his brother's wife's sister and whose husband had left her and that he married her when she became pregnant. He also stated that he had three children including PW 4 in the second marriage. He further stated that he had not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. However, after considering the entire evidence, the Trial Court found the appellant guilty under S.376(f) read with S.511 and S.377 IPC, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years each and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year each for the offences under S.376 read with S.511 and S.377 IPC. The substantive sentences were ordered to run consecutively. The accused was also given the benefit under S.428 CrPC. The Trial Court also ordered that the fine amount of Rs.40,000/-, if realized, shall be deposited in a nationalized bank in the name of PW 4, the victim.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant has raised the following contentions in challenging the judgment of the Trial Court: (i) the Trial Court committed serious error in believing the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to find the appellant guilty of the charge as there are circumstances to show that the evidence of PWs 3 and 4 is not reliable, (ii) the Trial Court committed serious error in recording the evidence of PW 4, a child aged seven years and that the procedure adopted by the Trial Court to record the evidence of PW 4 is not in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, (iii) the evidence of PWs 3, 5 and 6 would show that the case was foisted against the appellant by PW 3 with an ulterior motive to take vengeance on him and (iv) the finding of the Trial Court that the appellant attempted to commit rape on PW 4 is not supported by any medical evidence and that there was also delay in reporting the matter to the police.