JITHESH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in the instant Crime No.227/2019 of Aralam Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Sec.376(2)(n) of the IPC, on the basis of the FI Statement given by the lady victim on 17.08.2019, in respect of the alleged incidents which happened for the period between 05.09.2018 to 05.10.2018.

(2.) The prosecution case in short is that the lady victim aged 22 years is an employee in the studio owned by the petitioner/accused aged 37 years and that a love affair had started between the parties and that the petitioner never told her that he is a married man and on the other hand he had assured her that he would marry her and on that basis, she had sexual intercourse with the petitioner on three occasions between 05.09.2018 and 05.10.2018 and thereafter, she came to know that the petitioner is a married man and that she felt cheated and thereupon she had given the instant complaint by way of giving First Information Statement on 17.08.2019, which led to the registration of the instant crime on the same day. The petitioner has been arrested in this case on 16.08.2019 and after his remand, has been under detention for the last 46 days.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the abovesaid allegations are false and fabricated and that the license of the studio is in the name of his wife and that his daughter used to frequently come to the studio and that the lady de facto complainant, who was an employee there, very well knew that the petitioner is a married man and that the abovesaid allegations are false and fabricated and have been made only to blackmail and put pressure on the petitioner. Further that since the lady had committed misappropriation of money entrusted to her in the studio, she had to be terminated from service and is only on account of this, she has made the instant complaint belatedly. Further that the incidents as said to have happened between 05.09.2018 to 05.10.2018, whereas the FI Statement in the crime has been lodged as late as on 17.08.2019 and the long and unexplained delay in the registration of the crime is fatal to the prosecution case regarding its very believability and credibility. Further that even it is assumed that the incidents of sexual relationship has happened, the same could have happened only on the basis of consent between the parties and not otherwise. More particularly, as the lady knew very well that the petitioner, who is aged 37 years is a married man, as his daughter was frequently coming to the studio and his wife is the license holder in respect of the abovesaid studio and if that be so, none of the ingredients of rape as per Sec.375 of the IPC are made out.