RATHEESH @ KANNAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.81 of 2019 of Mannarkkad Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 11(iv) and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 and Section 77 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,2015.

(2.) The brief of the prosecution case is that the petitioner had shown pornographic videos in mobile phone to a boy child named Gokul, son of the de facto complainant(Gopinathan). It is alleged that the child has been beaten up by the petitioner for refusing to view the video and that the petitioner had threatened that he would finish off his parents and sister, in case the child disclosed of the incident. That the showing of the videos had continued under compulsion and threat of fear and that the child was compelled to smoke and consume liquor and that once the petitioner had removed the trousers of the child and pulled his private parts and rubbed his private parts using a blade. That the petitioner's friend Rajesh, who is accused No.2, has also taken part in the exhibition of videos from mobile phones.

(3.) The petitioner would point out that earlier the mother of the child had given a First Information Statement(FIS) which led to the registration of Crime No.67 of 2019 of Mannarkkad Police Station for offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC. The allegation therein is that the petitioner is a neighbour and when the said lady, de facto complainant was taking bath in the open premises, the petitioner then had taken her photographs and on the threat of using those photos, he had forcibly compelled the lady to undergo sexual intercourse with him on various occasions from 2014 to 2018, at the house of the petitioner as well as in her house. It is pointed out that the petitioner was arrested on 29.01.2019 in relation to the said crime in Annexure -A1 and later this Court has granted him regular bail, as per Annexure-A1 order dated 13.02.2019 in B.A. No.857 of 2019. That it has come to the notice of the petitioner that when he was in judicial custody from 29.01.2019, the present complaint has been given in relation to the incidents which has happened for the period from 2017 to August,2018. It is pointed by the petitioner that the First Information Statement(FIS) was given by the mother of the child in relation to the crime in Annexure-A1 sometime in January,2019, whereas the First Information Statement(FIS) in relation to the present crime was given on 03.02.2019, when the petitioner was undergoing judicial custody in relation to Annexure-A1 crime. It is pointed that if as a matter of fact, since the alleged incidents in relation to the present crime has occurred for the period from 2017 to 2018, and those incidents were really true, then certainly it would have found a place, when the mother of the child had given complaint against the petitioner in January,2019 in relation to the matter in Annexure-A1 crime. It is the case of the petitioner that when the petitioner could succeed to get bail in Annexure-A1 crime, the parents of the child wanted to again falsely implicate the petitioner in another crime, which led to the present complaint regarding the allegations that he has abused the child etc.