VIJENDRAKUMAR M. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein has been arrayed as accused Nos. 1 among the 3 accused in the instant crime No. 110/2018 of Kilimanoor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram which has been registered for offences punishable under sections 294(b), 323, 506i, 354, 354-B, and Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) ,(s),w(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989 as amended on the basis of the FIS given by the lady defacto complainant on 19/01/2018 at about 6 pm in respect of the alleged incidents which happened on 16/01/2018 at about 6 pm in the evening.

(2.) The brief of the prosecution case is that the lady defacto complainant belongs to Scheduled caste Community and she was married to a person who belongs to Ezhava community and that her husband was having an illicit affair with a lady who was an office bearer to a cultural organization called Sri. Narayana Cultural Movement Trust and that in order to deal with the situation, the lady had made a complaint to the said cultural organization about the amorous relationship which her husband was carrying on with the officer bearer of the said organization and she had gone to the office of the said organization on 16/01/2018 at about 6 pm in the evening to discuss with the said organization to pursue action against her husband and his lover and the accused persons had assaulted the defacto complainant and that A1 had slapped her and pulled down her sari and thereby he has committed the above said offences.

(3.) The learned Prosecutor would submit that the Police after investigation has found that the allegations as against A2 and A3 are false and that A2 and A3 have already been deleted from the accused array in the instant crime. The counsel for the petitioner would point out that nowhere in the FIS has the lady defacto complainant got a case that the accused persons including the petitioner herein knew that the lady defacto complainant belongs to scheduled caste community or that such knowledge be imputed to them and therefore the provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as amended will not be applicable in this case and therefore the bar created under Section 18 and 18A of the said Act for consideration of anticipatory bail plea is not applicable in this case.