SUJESH P.R. Vs. STATION HOUSE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in the instant Crime No.700 of 2019 of Sulthan Bathery Police station, Wayanad District, for offences punishable under Secs. 450, 376(2)(n), and 506 of the IPC, on the basis of F.I Statement given by the lady defacto complainant on 27-09-2019 at about 3.00 p.m, in respect of alleged incidents, which had happened on a day in June, 2019 and on 02-07-2019 and 03-07-2019.

(2.) The prosecution case in short is that the petitioner/accused, aged 37 years, is a married man having family and that the lady defacto complainant aged 36 years, is also married to another man and having a family and that both the petitioner/accused and lady's husband are contractors, who are known to each other and that on a day in the month of June 2019, when the lady defacto complainant was on her way to Sulthan Bathery, the petitioner/accused, who was passing through the road in his car, had offered her a lift to Bathery and she boarded in his car and when she reached at Thoduvetty, in front of a house under construction, the petitioner/accused stopped the car saying that he wanted to know details of the work in that work site and the petitioner had then committed forcible sexual intercourse with her inside the car in the back seat and further that on 02-07-2019 and 03-07-2019, the petitioner/accused had trespassed into her house and had committed forcible sexual intercourse with her in her bedroom and that he had threatened her stating that he has photos of the earlier incidents and that it will be divulged if she resists, etc. Further it is stated in the F.I. Statement that she is not in a position to know the exact day on which the incident happened in 2019, presumably the incident which is said to have happened on a day in June 2019 etc,. The petitioner has been arrested in this case on 28-09-2019 and after his remand, he has been under the custody since then.

(3.) Sri. T.G. Rajendran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would urge that the abovesaid allegations are false and baseless and further that an intelligent reading of the FIS would indicate that even if it is assumed for argument sake that the incidents narrated therein are broadly true, then the same could have happened only on the basis of the consent between the parties and not otherwise and that the vital ingredients of offence of rape are not disclosed in this case. The counsel for the petitioner would point out that the lady's allegation that the petitioner had committed rape on her in the backside of his car, when the car was stopped near work site, is absolutely unbelievable and lacks credibility, etc,.