RASHEED Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in the instant Crime No.356/2019 of Erumapetty Police Station, Thrissur for the offence as per Section 375 of IPC as punishable under Section 376(1) of IPC , on the basis of the F.I. Statement of the lady victim given on 27.8.2019 at about 8.30 p.m. in respect of the alleged incident, which had happened on 4.5.2019 at about 9 a.m. in the morning.

(2.) The prosecution case in short is that the step-daughter of the petitioner/accused, aged 46 years, has married the lady victim's brother and further that the lady victim is a married woman, aged 36 years and that 4.5.2019 at about 9 a.m., the petitioner had visited the lady's house when she was alone on the guise that he wants to know the whereabouts of his step-daughter and that the lady victim immediately told him that she is not there. But, the petitioner said that he wants to charge his mobile and requested for a cup of tea and that the lady had gone to the kitchen to prepare the tea at which point of time, he had gone there and had assaulted her and had forcible sexual intercourse on her and thereby he has committed the above said offences. The petitioner has been arrested on 9.9.2019 and after his remand, he has been under detention since then.

(3.) Sri. Navaneeth. N. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused would submit that the above said allegations are absolutely false and fabricated and that the truth of the matter is other way round. That the petitioner's step-daughter is married to the lady victim's brother and that the said daughter's husband and the lady victim, who is her sister-in-law and others have consistently treated her with cruelty and harassment and had demanded for more dowry and at times, she was forced to starve in the house and she was constrained to go to the neighboours' house for taking food and in that regard, the petitioner's step-daughter has given Annexure-II complaint dated 25.5.2019 before the SHO concerned. Further, since no effective action was taken on Annexure-II complaint, the petitioner's daughter was again constrained to give Annexure-III complaint dated 10.8.2019 before the District Police Chief, Thrissur reiterating the above said allegations and consistent harassment and cruelty inflicted on her by her husband's relatives, more particularly, by the lady victim herein, who is her husband's sister. Thereafter, petitioner was also constrained to submit Annexure-IV complaint dated 10.8.2019 before the SHO concerned reiterating the above said matters and has requested the Police to take immediate action against the relatives of his step-daughter's husband including the lady victim and that the petitioner's son-in-law had frequently telephoned and threatened him that the petitioner would be entrapped in false cases etc. Further that the competent Police authorities concerned had summoned the close relatives of the step-daughter's husband including the lady victim herein in relation to the matters in Annexures-II to IV complaints. It is only thereafter that the lady victim has chosen to file the instant Anneuxre-I F.I. Statement as late as on 24.8.2019 raising false allegations, which has led to the instant crime only for the purpose of entrapping the petitioner in a false case, so that he would be behind bars. Very crucially counsel for the petitioner would urge that the alleged incident in Annexure-I crime is said to have happened on 4.5.2019 whereas the F.I.S and the crime have been lodged as late as on 24.8.2019 and the long delay in that regard has been completely unexplained. Further that the long unexplained delay in lodging of the instant crime would vitiate the entire criminal proceedings as it affects the very credibility and believability of the prosecution case, more particularly, in the light of the matters relating to Annexures-II to IV complaints, which have been made against the family members of the lady victim herein. Accordingly, it is urged by the petitioner's counsel that, at any rate, further detention of the petitioner may not be necessary, as he has already suffered detention for the last 32 days and that the petitioner may be released on regular bail subject to any stringent conditions.