ABDUL LATHEEF Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in the instant Crime No.243/2019 of Irinjalakuda Police Station which has been registered for the offences punishable under Secs.450 and 376 of the IPC. The said case has been lodged on the basis of the FIS given by the lady defacto complainant on 20.03.2019 at about 2.20 p.m. in respect of the alleged incident which happened on 01.08.2018 at about 10.00 p.m.

(2.) The prosecution case in short is as disclosed in the abovesaid FIS is that the lady defacto complainant aged 35 years is a married and having 2 children and whose husband is working in a Gulf country and the petitioner/accused aged 45 years is a married man, having wife and children. That earlier, the lady was working as a house maid in a Gulf country and there, she got acquainted with a man and later, married that man who belongs to Islam religion and for the said marriage, she had changed the religion. Now, she is having 2 children aged 7 years and 2 ½ years. That the petitioner/accused and his wife, who are living in the immediate neighbourhood used to frequently help the lady defacto complainant in managing her house affairs and she had even lend some money to the petitioner's wife. Further that, earlier as requested by the lady defacto complainant's husband, she had send her nude photographs to her husband through her mobile cell and that on a day when her minor son was playing with the said mobile, the petitioner had got the said mobile from the child and had seen the nude photographs and he transmitted the said nude photographs of lady defacto complainant to his mobile. Later, the petitioner threatened the lady defacto complainant that he would show the said naked video pictures of the lady to her husband or otherwise, she should succumb to his sexual demands. Thereupon, he had committed forcible sexual intercourse on her on 01.08.2018. Later, he had demanded her that she should send video pictures of her private parts and she had send such pictures of her private parts to the petitioner. He had also altogether availed personal loan of Rs.8 lakhs from her. Off late, he was again threatening her that he would divulge her naked pictures etc. and therefore, she had no other way, but to lodge complaint to the Police etc.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the abovesaid allegations are false and baseless. Further that, the specific case put up by the lady defacto complainant to project a case of threat and intimidation made by the petitioner is that she herself had voluntarily send her nude photos to her husband in her mobile cell as demanded by her husband and later, when her mobile phone was being used by her child, the petitioner got access to the said phone and he had transmitted the said pictures to his phone and threatened her that if she does not accede to his sexual demands, he would divulge the said nude pictures to her husband.