RAJAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in the instant crime No. 518/2019 of Pudukkad Police Station, Thrissur which has been registered for offences punishable under sections 376, 376(2)(f)(n), 377 and 506(i) of the IPC. The said crime has been registered on the basis of the FIS given by the lady defacto complainant on 02/08/2019 at about 12.10 noon in respect of the alleged incidents which happened for the period from 01/06/2019 to 22/07/2019. Consequent to the petitioner's surrender, he has been remanded on 14/08/2019 and thereafter, he has been under detention since then. The police has completed investigation and has filed the Final Report/Charge Sheet before the learned Magistrate on 24/08/2019 and thereafter the case has been duly committed by the learned Magistrate on 25/09/2019 to the Session's Court concerned.

(2.) The brief of the Prosecution case is that the lady defacto complainant aged 78 years is the mother-in-law of the petitioner aged 52 years and that the lady's husband died about 45 years back and that after the floods of August 2018, her house was partially destroyed and she has been residing with her various children at different points of time and that the petitioner's wife, who is the daughter of the lady had taken responsibility of taking care of the lady and that since April 2019, she has been residing with the petitioner and his wife. The petitioner's wife (lady's daughter) is working in a pharmacy and that on a day in June, 2019, after the petitioner's wife had left the house, he had remained there and when the petitioner and the lady defacto complainant were alone, the petitioner had forcible sexual intercourse with her and had also indulged in anal penetrative intercourse. That the petitioner has repeated the above said incidents of forcible penetrative sexual assault on her atleast on 9 occasions on various periods from the first incidents which happened on a day in June 2019 upto 22/07/2019. That the petitioner used to frequently threaten and intimidate her that if she discloses the incident to anybody, he would kill her. Out of fear and shame, she had never disclosed the incident to anyone including her daughter and that later, she had left the house and went to the house of one of her other daughters, where she told them and one of her sons had thereafter taken her to the police station which has led to the registration of the instant crime.

(3.) The counsel for the petitioner would point out that the above said allegations are false and baseless and that the lady has no case at any time prior to June, 2019, that the petitioner has done any such sexual assault on her and further that even according to the lady's version, she has been residing with the petitioner and his wife since April 2019 and that no such incidents have occurred for the first 2 months and further that the FIS and the crime has been lodged as late as on 02/08/2019 in respect of the alleged incidents which happened for the period from June, 2019 and that the long delay is unexplained which would vitiate the criminal proceedings. Further that the medical report would also disapprove the case of the lady's allegations. It is further pointed out that the investigation has been completed and taking into account the fact that the petitioner has already suffered detention for the last 96 days, this Court may order to release him on regular bail subject to any stringent conditions.