ULAHANNAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks to revise the concurrent findings, entered by courts below, finding him guilty of offences under S.376 and 450 IPC. Charge against petitioner was, that he trespassed into the house of PW 1 (a 14 year old girl) at or about 1.30 p.m. on 23-9-86 when she was alone and committed rape, against her will and without her consent, putting her in fear of death. PW 1 was attending to household chores, when petitioner (on the wrong side of 70), accosted her, closed the door, showed a sickle and threatened to kill her, if she raised her voice. He then pressed her down to sit, undressed her and effected penetration. Meanwhile, PW 2 mother of PW 1 returned home, and seeing the door ajar called out her daughter. Walking in she saw, what any mother would wish, she had not seen. PW 2 flew into a rage and pushed the petitioner down, asking him why he had ruined her child. Then she started sobbing. Petitioner sustained a knee injury in the process. This, is the version of PW 1.

(2.) PW 2 stated that she saw PW 1 and petitioner in coitus. There is no reason to disbelieve her, for, no mother in a convential society is likely to foist a case tarnishing the reputation of her daughter of such tender years. That, PW 2 came rushing and reported what had happened, is spoken to by PW 5, a neighbour. PW 5 also saw PW 1 sitting and crying. PW 6 another neighbour heard the cry of PW 2 around 1.30 p.m. and went to her house. Then he saw PW 1, in tears. PW 1 told him of the happenings. The evidence of these disinterested witnesses, contemporaneous and unimpeachable, corroborate the version of PW 1, chapter and verse. Further corroboration is available if it be needed. MO 2 rag with which PW 1 wiped herself, and MO 3 underwear worn by her, recovered under Ext. P5 mahazar attested by PW 8 contained 'semenal plasma' and 'traces of blood' as seen from Ext. P19 certificate, issued by the Director of Forensic Science Laboratory. The cloth worn by petitioner also contained traces of semen. Yet, another corroborative and confirmatory link, is the evidence of PW 9 Doctor who examined petitioner, and noticed a knee injury, corresponding to that indicated by PWs. 1 and 2. PW 9 would further say that petitioner told him that the injury was caused by Thankamani (PW 2). The evidence of PW 9, would also show that petitioner was quite virile. The evidence aforementioned, clearly proves the charge.

(3.) Main contention raised by counsel for petitioner is that medical evidence negative the charge of rape. The contention is fallacious. Medical evidence can hardly ever, negative a charge of rape. It may not support the charge. It cannot negative. PW 12 and PW 13 Gynaecologist and Professor in the Medical College respectively, who examined PW 2 per vagina, clearly state that PW 1 had an elastic hymen, which can survive sexual intercourse. These witnesses further state that rupture of hymen is not necessary, in cases of such elastic hymen. If medical evidence is neutral, oral evidence and Ext. P19 certificate conclusively prove the charge.