VINOD Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been arrayed as the sole accused in the instant Crime No.774/2019 of Thrikkunnapuzha Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Sec.376(2)(f) of the IPC and Secs.5n and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The petitioner has been arrested in this case on 27.6.2019 and has been under judicial custody since then.

(2.) The prosecution case in short is that, the petitioner now aged 32 years is the maternal first cousin of the lady victim who is now aged 19 years. It appears that the parents of the lady victim are living separately and the victim's mother was residing along with the victim in the house belonging to the victim's mother's sister, where the said lady's husband is also residing. When the victim was found pregnant, she was taken to the hospital for medical termination of pregnancy, and there she had initially given statement to the Doctor who had conducted medical examination, that it was one Akhil, a migrant labourer, who is responsible for pregnancy and that he had raped her, etc. Later she had told the Police that the said Akhil is her maternal first cousin and later she told the Police that her mother's elder sister's husband had forcible sexual intercourse with her, which led to the pregnancy, etc. In the course of investigation of the said crime she had also told the Police that the petitioner herein, who is her maternal first cousin had come to her bedroom while she was studying in Std.X, some time in the year 2015 and had sexual intercourse with her, and thereby he has committed the abovesaid offences. It appears that the victim has not specified the month and day of occurrence of the instant incident, and her case is that it happened in the year 2015 and the FIS is given as late as on 22.6.2019.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner would point out that the abovesaid allegations are all false and fabricated and that the Case Diary statements in this case would reveal that the victim has been changing her stand even regarding as to the person who was responsible for the alleged pregnancy, and that the long delay of more than 4 years in this case is ominous and would be fatal to the prosecution case as regards its very credibility and believability. Accordingly it is urged by the petitioner's counsel that further detention of the petitioner is no longer necessary as he has already suffered detention to the last 85 days.