SREEJITH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been arrayed as the sole accused in the instant Crime No.499/2019 of Poovar Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Section 376 of the IPC and Secs.3 & 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. This crime has been registered on the basis of FIS given by the lady victim on 3.5.2019 at about 6 pm in respect of the alleged incidents which have happened for the period from December, 2015 to February, 2016.

(2.) The prosecution case in short is that, the lady victim who is now aged 20 years, when she was aged 15 years was having a love affair with the petitioner accused, who was then aged 20 years (Presently he is aged 25 years), and that on a day in December, 2015, he had taken her to his friend's house, and had kissed and embraced her and touched her breast, and he had also touched her genital area. Later on the Valentines day in February, 2016, viz, 14.2.2016, he had taken the lady victim in his bike to his house and taken to the bedroom and forced her to remove her dresses, and then had "licked, sucked and fingered", etc, and when he attempted to commit intercourse, she did not permit it, and that this happened on a day when there was none in the house. Thereafter the petitioner was neglecting her, and now she has lodged the FIS on 3.5.2019 at about 6 pm in respect of the abovesaid alleged incidents.

(3.) Sri.Sasthamangalam S.Ajthkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would urge that the abovesaid allegations have been falsely foisted on the petitioner, and further that indisputably the lady victim has made the allegations as late as on 3.5.2019 about the alleged incidents which have taken place in December, 2015 and February, 2016, and the long delay of about 4 years in the instant case is fatal to the prosecution and as it raises serious question marks about the very credibility and believability of the story put up by the prosecutrix. Further that the lady victim has conspicuously not made any allegation of any sexual assault as having been committed by the petitioner after she had attained the age of 18 years, and she had made the instant allegations only after she has completed the age of 20 years, and that the long and unexplained delay should affect the very credibility and believability of her version. Further that, the prosecutrix has only stated that the accused had "licked, sucked and fingered", etc and no specific details so as to attract the vital ingredients of the broadened definition of rape and the broadened definition of penetrative sexual assault as per the amended provision of Sec.370 of the IPC and Secs.3 & 4 of the POCSO Act, has been made out in the instant case even now. Further that the prosecutrix has refused to undergo medical examination, and that would also raise serious question marks about her conduct in regard to her believability, and that it is sufficient to draw adverse inference about her version. Further that at any rate the continued detention of the petitioner is not necessary as he has been under judicial custody since 12.6.2019.