STATE OF KERALA Vs. RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A father is supposed to be a protector of his progeny. Gone are the days of a concerned father like Emperor Babar praying for his son's life at the cost of his own or an obedient son like Casablanca standing embedded on a burning dock in obedience of his father's command. The case on hand is one where serious allegations of the accused having attempted to commit rape of his own daughter Manjula thereinafter referred to as the deceased), and thereafter causing her death have been made. Learned Additional Sessions Court, pathanamthitta held that prosecution has failed to establish the heinous allegations relating to commission of offences' punishable under S. 376 read with Ss. 511,436, 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'the IPC' ). Correctness of the judgment of acquittal is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal by the State.

(2.) THE factual background which led to trial of the case is as follows:- THE deceased was aged about 17 years. Accused was having doubt about the paternity of the girl and therefore, there was frequent discontent in the family. On the fateful day i. e. ,17. 2. 1993 while his wife Sumangala was absent, he tried to have sexual intercourse with the deceased which was resisted by the latter. Fearing that his reputation will be blackened, he shut her mouth and nose by hand and when she became unconscious, poured kerosene from a can on her and set fire. She died out of burns. He left the place and when informed by some other neighbours, he came back to the house and gave information to the Police. THE case bearing No. 72/93 under caption 'fire occurrence' was registered. Since nothing came out from the investigation, case was registered by the Additional Sub Inspector of Police, who after investigation came to the conclusion that incident was a mere fire accident. When the matter was about to be closed, investigation was undertaken by the crime Branch. A charge sheet was placed and accused stood for trial. Twenty one witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution. On consideration of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, learned trial judge found the accused not guilty and acquitted him.

(3.) S. 378 of me Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which corresponds to S. 417 of the old Code provides for appeal in case of acquittal.