SUCHITHRAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the accused involved in both these applications is the same person and as the allegations in these two crimes are inter-related, these applications are disposed of on the basis of common order. The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in the instant Anx.A Crime No.1687 of 2019 of Thumba Police station, Thiruvananthapuram, for offences punishable under Secs. 7, 8, 21 and 19 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence (POCSO) Act, 2012, and Secs.354 and 34 of IPC, on the basis of F.I Statement given by the minor victim girl, aged 13 years on 26-09-2019 at about 11.10 p.m, in respect of alleged incidents, which happened for the period from 16-09-2018 to 26-08-2019. The minor victim girl, aged 13 years in this case, is a younger sister of the minor victim girl aged 16 years, who is the victim in crime No.1689/2019 of the same Police Station, which has given rise to connected B.A No.7747/2019.

(2.) The prosecution case as made out in the F.I.Statement given by the minor victim girl aged 13 years, is to the effect that she has been residing along with her parents and elder sister, aged 16 years, and that the petitioner/accused aged 43 years, is a married man, who is a close friend of her father and who used to repeatedly come to the residence and used to take unnecessary freedom there, which was not in any manner curtailed by her parents. The F.I. Statement does not give any material particulars about the details of the day, month and year, in which the initial incidents have taken place. It is stated that on a day, the petitioner had come to her house and made the minor victim girl sit on his lap and that he had touched her private parts. When she complained to her mother, she had told the girl not to raise the said issue with father and therefore, she did not complain about it to her father. Later the father had brought a mobile phone in November, 2018 and the petitioner had come there and had touched her chest/breast, whereupon she had told him to go out of the house and on hearing the noise, her parents had come there and her mother told everything to her father. Then her father told that the if matter is made an issue, then the people and in the locality will come to know about it. Later the minor victim girl, aged 13 years, and her mother have shifted their residence to their maternal house and still the petitioner is coming there. It appears that the parents of the minor victim girl have been arrayed as accused 2 and 3 for offences as per Secs.19 and 21 of POCSO Act.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the above said allegations are false and baseless and further that the petitioner had entered into Anx.B agreement for sale dated 23-08-2017 with the girl's father for the purchase of latter's property and as stated therein had handed over Rs.20 Lakhs as advance out of the total agreed consideration of 25 Lakhs and the deadline for the deal was six months therefrom, which was to expire by the third week of February, 2018. That thereafter the girl's father had breached his part of the agreement to convey the property, in spite of receiving more than 80% of the advance amounts. That it is only to get over the said difficulties that the parents of the victim had instigated the girl to make the abovesaid allegations. Further that one of the relatives of the petitioner had discussed the matter with the parents of the girl as to why they are implicating the petitioner and in the said mobile telephonic and conversation, the mother of the victim girl has told the close relative of the petitioner, that the petitioner is innocent and that he has been falsely implicated because of the said transactions and that the audio recording of the said conversation of the mother of the victim is with the petitioner and that he will place the same before the Investigating Agency concerned. Further it is stated that as the petitioner has been arrested in this case on 27-09-2019 and has been under detention since then. It is pointed out that as the petitioner has suffered detention for the last 40 days, his continued detention may not be necessary and that he may be released on regular bail.