MUHAMMADKUTTY T.T. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in the instant crime No.452/2019 of Beypore Police Station, Kozhikode which has been registered for offences punishable under Sections 354, 354(1)(i) of the IPC and Sections 7 r/w 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act 2012. The above said crime has been registered on the basis of the First Information Statement given by the minor victim girl aged 14 years on 20.11.2019 at about 4.00 P.M (crime registered on the same day at 5.45 P.M) in respect of the alleged incidents which have happened on a day in August, 2019.

(2.) The brief of the prosecution case is that on a day in the 4th week of August, 2019 and before the Sreekrishna Jayanthi day, the minor victim girl aged 14 years and another girl of her age, who is her friend had gone to the petitioner's shop to purchase some fancy items for the said friend of the victim and the petitioner/accused aged 64 years, who is the proprietor of the said shop had came near her and with intent to commit sexual assault, had pressed the right breast and thus outrages the modesty of the minor victim girl and thus petitioner has committed the above said offences. The petitioner was arrested and remanded on 22.11.2019 and thereafter under custody since then.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the above said allegations are false and baseless and have arisen only out of misunderstandings and that the alleged victim girl and her friend were frequent visitors in the petitioner's shop and the victim girl on that day had taken a set of bangles on her own, though the petitioner had told her to wait as several other customers waiting in the shop, the minor victim girl wanted to take out the bangles in a hurry and then the petitioner has constrained to stop her from doing so, as otherwise many other gift items disclosed there would also have fallen down and in that process petitioner might have touched her chest and the girl out of misunderstandings and being hangared in the petitioner's conduct in stopping her from taking the bangle would have thought on the basis of misunderstandings that it was a bad touch and that petitioner is a elderly citizen aged more than 64 years and he never had the remotest bad intention in that regard. Further that the version given by the minor victim girl in the First Information Statement, as if she never knew the petitioner before, etc is absolutely 1.02.08 wrong as the victim girl used to frequently come to petitioner's shop on many previous occasions and there are never has been any bad conduct on the part of the petitioner.