ARUN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein have been arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 among the two ccused in the instant Crime No. 1868/2019 of Adoor Police Station, Pathanamthitta, registered for offences punishable under Secs.341, 323, 294(b), 506, 354 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code . The above crime has been registered on the basis of the First Information Statement given by the lady de facto complainant on 19.09.2019 at about 4 p.m., in respect of the alleged incidents, which happened on 11.09.2019 at about 11 a.m.

(2.) The prosecution case in short is that the two petitioners herein are the two sons of the lady de facto complainant's brother and that the lady's brother and his wife are estranged and the petitioners therein are staying with their brother and that the lady's brother had purchased a nearby property where their father has been accommodated and that on 11.09.2019, at about 11 a.m., the petitioners had come to visit the lady's father, who is the paternal grandfather of the petitioners and there some wordy altercations taken place and later led to some scuffle between the petitioners and the lady's son and hearing the noise, the lady and her sister came running there, whereupon the petitioners had assaulted them and she fell down and she was beaten by a stick by the petitioners and thereby they have committed the abovesaid offences.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that the alleged incident is said to have taken place on 11.09.2019, whereas the case has been lodged only as late as on 19.09.2019 and the delay of 8 days in this case is fatal, as there is no proper explanation for the delay in that regard and therefore, the very believability and credibility of the prosecution case are stake. Further that the only non-bailable offence alleged in this case is the one as per Sec.354 of the IPC and even by the prosecution case, the allegation is that some scuffle had taken place between the petitioners and the lady's son and hearing noise, she and her sister had come running down and then they were assaulted, etc. and from this, it cannot be gathered that the accused persons had the premeditated intention of mens rea, so as to commit the offence of violating the modesty of a woman and that this is all the more so in view of the fact that it was mainly a case of assault wherein the ladies had intervened, whereupon the unforeseen incidents are happened, etc.