MOHANAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in the instant Annexure-1 Crime No.823/2019 of Munambam Police Station, Ernakulam, which has been initially registered for offences punishable under Secs.7,8 & 18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence (POCSO) Act, 2012 and Secs.341 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code . The said crime has been registered on the basis of the First Information Statement given by the minor victim boy aged 8 years on 21.10.2019 at about 8.40 p.m., in respect of the alleged incidents happened on 17.10.2019 at about 4 p.m. The police after investigation has subsequently added the offence as per Sec.511 of Sec.377 of the IPC (attempt to commit the unnatural offence of committing carnal intercourse against the order of nature). The petitioner has been arrested in this case on 21.10.2019 and after his remand, he has been under custody since then.

(2.) The prosecution case in short is that the minor victim boy aged 8 years is living in the neighbourhood of the Co-operative Bank, where the petitioner aged 66 years has been employed as a security personnel and that on 17.10.2019 at about 4 p.m., the petitioner/accused had dragged the minor victim boy aged 8 years in the bathroom of the bank. Thereafter, the petitioner had stripped of his pant and forced his head to his penile portion by asking the victim to give a kiss on his penile area and thereafter, he has wrongfully confined the victim in the bathroom and threatened him by showing a knife that if it is disclosed, he would be killed, etc.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the abovesaid allegations are false and baseless and further that the petitioner is working as a security personnel in the Co-operative Bank concerned, where lot of school going children loiter there and the petitioner as security person had to many of times scold the children not to loiter, which has created lot of local enmity and that this has snow-balled into the fabrication of this false case. Further that, the victim has no consistent case, that the subsequent version given in Sec.164 Cr.P.C statement recorded before the learned Magistrate is compared with his initial version given at the FIS stage. Further that, the petitioner is a senior citizen aged more than 66 years and that he has health issues and that this Court may order to release him on regular bail subject to stringent conditions and that his further detention is not necessary, as he has already suffered detention for the last 22 days. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also urged that even going by the admitted allegations, the offence as per Sec.511 of Sec.377 of the IPC will not be made out, etc.