BIJUMON @ NAVAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA THROUGH S I OF POLICE, ADOOR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA, REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein has been arrayed as accused No.3 in the instant Crime No.979/2014 of Adoor Police Station, Pathanamthitta, which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs.370A, 417, 354, 376, 506(i) read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec.10 read with Sec.24 (1) (b) of the Emigration Act, 1983, on the basis of the FI Statement given by the lady de facto complainant on 08.05.2014 in respect of the alleged incidents which had happened for the period from 10.10.2013 to 24.10.2013.

(2.) The prosecution case in short is that the lady de facto complainant aged 37 years is a married woman having children and her husband is working as a driver and that her family had approached A-1 & A-2 to secure an employment visa as driver for the lady's husband and that A-1 & A-2 assured them that they would get employment visas both for the lady as a maid servant and for her husband as a driver in Kuwait through the help of A-3, who is based in Kuwait and that thereafter, visa was arranged only for the lady and she had gone to Kuwait and there she was given accommodation by A-3 and thereafter, he had forcible sexual intercourse with her on quite a few occasions for the period from 10.10.2013 to 24.10.2013. That thereafter with great difficulty, she could come back to Kerala and out of fear and shame, she did not initially tell the incidents to her husband and later she had come forward to the police and has given the instant FI Statement on 08.05.2014 on the basis of which the present crime has been registered. A-1 & A-2 have been arrested, remanded and thereafter let out on regular bail. According to the prosecution, the petitioner (A-3) who was in Kuwait could not be apprehended and look out notice had to be issued and thereafter he has apprehended in the Cochin International Airport, Nedumbassery, Ernakulam on 06.08.2019 and has been under judicial custody since then.

(3.) Sri.P.Sathisan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the abovesaid allegations are false and baseless and that the petitioner has noting to do with the alleged recruitment of the lady de facto complainant said to have been made by A-1 & A-2 and that the petitioner is running a medical service agency in Kuwait and that his enquiries now has revealed that the visa was given to the lady by an entirely different employer, who is a citizen of Kuwait and that the domestic service contract as evident from Annexure-A1, which is authenticated by the Indian Embassy in Kuwait and it shows that the said visa has been issued to the lady de facto complainant and that going by the terms and conditions of the said visa, the maid servant has to reside in the accommodation given by the sponsorer and that the petitioner has no transaction whatsoever in the abovesaid recruitment and is not in any manner related to the lady's accommodation and employment in Kuwait. Further that Annexures-A2 & A3 are the receipts regarding the payments made by the sponsorer to the recruiting agency, who has issued Annexure-A1 and that the name of the lady de facto complainant is clearly shown in Annexures-A1, A2 & A3. Further the enquiries of the petitioner was revealed that on 09.11.2013 her service as a maid servant was given to another sponsorer for two days. That the petitioner has various business rivals and it is quite likely that it is such rivals, who have set up the lady de facto complainant to raise false allegations against the petitioner.