LINISH, S/O LIAKKATH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions arise from Crime No.880/2012 of Chathannoor police station for offences punishable under sections 363,323,376 read with section 34 IPC.

(2.) On 30/7/2012, at 4.p.m., a 26 year old married woman laid an FIS. It was alleged that, one Firose had developed a close acquaintance with the defacto complainant. On 11/5/2012, Firose requested her to reach Kottiyam junction for passing on a confidential information regarding her husband. While she was waiting for him, Firose came in a car and the person, who was sitting in the rear seat, asked her to enter the car. Thereafter, the vehicle was driven along Thiruvananthapuram route. It was stated that, she was assaulted inside the car. She fell unconscious. When she regained consciousness, it was found that accused had removed her dress and sexually abused her. She was threatened that her nude photographs had been taken. Subsequently, on 4/6/2012, threatening her that her nude photographs would be published, she was again taken in a car by Firose and his friend and raped her one after another in the running car. Due to unbearable trauma that followed, she disclosed the incidents to her husband. Accordingly, arraying Firose as the first accused and his friend as the second accused, crime was registered by the police.

(3.) Investigation was taken over by the CI of Kottiyam police station. On 22/2/2013, a report was submitted referring one Linish as the second accused. The second accused was arrested on 13/5/2013. He was remanded and released on bail after several days custody. After completion of the investigation, final report was laid against the petitioner herein on 4/7/2014. Since the first accused was not traceable, the second accused alone faced the trial in SC No. 181/2015 of the Additional Sessions Court Kollam. On the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW8 were examined. The victim, who was examined as PW1, has asserted that though the first accused had raped her, she could not identify the second accused as the person who ravished her along with Firose. As far as that accused was concerned, her stand was that, he was not person who had committed rape. The husband of the defacto complainant was examined as PW2. He also tendered evidence that the second accused was not known to him. Consequently, by the judgment of the Additional Sessions Court, the second accused was acquitted on 28/1/2015.