IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2008 / 9TH MAGHA 1929 CRL.A.No.1750 of 2003 (D) -------------------------------- SC.181/1999 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), KALPETTA .................... APPELLANT: ACCUSED -------------------------- MURUKAN @ MURUKESAN, S/O. PERIYASWAMI, MANJADI, THEVARIMALA P.O., SULTHAN BATHERY. BY ADV. SRI.LALJI P.THOMAS RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PROSECUTION, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ Crl. Appeal No.1750 of 2003 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT The accused convicted and sentenced for offences under Sections 450, 506(1) and 376 IPC vide judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Kalpetta dt.15/09/03 in S.C.181/99 on the file of the Sessions Division, Wayanad is the appellant. On conviction, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of one year for offence under Section 376 IPC; to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further term of one month for offence under Section 450 IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for offence under Crl. Appeal No.1750 of 2003 -2- Section 506(1) IPC with benefit of concurrency and right of set off. He challenges in this appeal the correctness and sustainability of the conviction and sentence so passed against him by the court below. 2. The prosecution case is that at about 4.00 p.m on 02/10/94, the appellant trespassed into the house of PW3 bearing Door No.V/426 at Manhadi in Nenmeni amsom with the intention of committing rape on PW3; intimidated her with dire consequences and forcibly took her to the bedroom of the house and thereafter forcibly committed rape on her. It is also alleged that the appellant intimidated PW3 and put her to fear of death if she disclosed the occurrence to anybody. It is also the prosecution case that PW3/the victim was aged 15 years and was studying in IX standard in Assumption Girls High School, at Sulthan Bathery. PW3 delivered Crl. Appeal No.1750 of 2003 -3- a male child at the Thaluk Headquarters Hospital, Sulthan Bathery on 29/07/95. 3. Ext.P3 complaint was submitted, thereafter before the Circle Inspector of Police, Sulthan Bathery by PW3 and on the basis thereof, the Circle Inspector instructed the Sub Inspector of Ambalavayal Police Station to register the case and accordingly, Crime No.120/95 of Ambalavayal Police Station was registered drawing up Ext.P7 FIR in that behalf by PW8 the Sub Inspector of Police. The investigation in the case was conducted by PW9 the Circle Inspector of Police, Sulthan Bathery and the final report was laid by PW10 the Circle Inspector of Police who was holding charge of Circle Inspector of Police, Sulthan Bathery at that time. The final report so submitted before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Sulthan Bathery was Crl. Appeal No.1750 of 2003 -4- registered on file as C.P.6/99 and vide proceedings in C.P.6/99, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court, Wayanad Division after complying with all legal formalities. 4. The case was registered on the file of the Sessions Division, Wayanad as S.C.181/99 and was later, made over to the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc), Kalpetta for trial and disposal. Pursuant to issuance of summons, the appellant entered appearance in the court below and he engaged his own lawyer to conduct the case on his behalf. After hearing preliminary arguments, charge was framed against the appellant for offence under Sections 450, 376 and 506(1) IPC; read over and explained to the appellant and he was questioned. Thereupon, he pleaded not guilty and consequently, a trial of the case was Crl. Appeal No.1750 of 2003 -5- conducted by the court below. 5. Prosecution examined PWs.1 to 10 and got marked Exts.P1 to P8. On the prosecution closing their evidence, the appellant was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thereupon, he generally denied all incriminating circum- stances appearing in evidence against him and maintained that he is innocent. He also filed a written statement of defence wherein he has stated that himself and PW3 belong to Harijan community and were in love and they decided to enter into a marriage; that PW3 was then aged seventeen years; and that it was on her interest that he had sexual intercourse with her; that accordingly he was having sexual intercourse with her on several occasions; and that on coming to know that she is pregnant himself and his family members had approached through mediators several times to give her in Crl. Appeal No.1750 of 2003 -6- marriage to him but that neither PW3 nor members of her family agreed thereto; and that after delivery this case was being caused to be registered against him on false allegations and that he is even now ready to marry PW3 and to maintain PW3 and her child. 6. On the defence side DWs.1 and 2 were examined. 7. The court below heard arguments of both sides; considered the case in the light of the evidence adduced as aforesaid; found that the appellant has committed offences as alleged punishable under Section 376, 450 and 506(1) IPC; convicted him thereunder and sentenced him as already stated. Hence, this appeal by the aggrieved appellant. 8. It is vehemently contended before me by the learned senior counsel Sri.V.A.Mathai that there is absolutely no reliable evidence Crl. Appeal No.1750 of 2003 -7- in the case to believe the prosecution case; that the evidence of PW3/the victim of the alleged offence will show that she is not at all speaking the truth; that in fact her age is above sixteen years; that the evidence would go to show that the appellant was having sexual intercourse with her with her consent and that the appellant should have therefore, been found not guilty in the circumstances and acquitted. However, it is not the case of the appellant that he was not having any sexual intercourse with PW3 or that the child born to PW3 is not child born out of the sexual relationship he had with her. 9. As rightly contended by the counsel for the appellant, there is no evidence to show that the age of PW3/the victim was below sixteen years or that she was a minor aged fifteen years as alleged by the prosecution. Crl. Appeal No.1750 of 2003 -8- The documentary evidence that was attempted to be let in by the prosecution is Ext.P5 certificate issued by PW6 the Headmaster of Assumption Girls High School, Sulthan Bathery where PW3 at the relevant time was studying in the IX standard. According to PW6, he was issuing Ext.P5 certificate after verifying the school admission register, entries in which were made based on the details in the transfer certificate produced from the school wherein she was studying earlier. It is admitted that the admission in the first instance was not in Assumption Girls High School in Sulthan Bathery and that Ext.P5 was being issued basing on the records available in the said school. It is not in dispute that PW3 was studying in the IX standard at the relevant time in that school; that she was initially being admitted by her maternal grandmother in Crl. Appeal No.1750 of 2003 -9- the first standard in G.L.P. School, Kunthani where she studied up to the fourth standard that thereafter, she studied for Upper Primary in the Assumption School and it was thereafter that she was admitted in Assumption Girls High School, Sulthan Bathery. The investigating officer has not made any effort to arrive at any authentic document which would evidence the age of PW3. Extract from the school admission register either from G.L.P. School, Kunthani or from Assumption Girls High School, Sulthan Bathery is not caused to be produced or extracts therefrom being obtained and produced before court. Ext.P5 certificate issued by PW6 which is stated to be prepared on perusal of the school records cannot be acted upon for the purpose of holding that the age of PW3 is only fifteen years and her date of birth is 10/01/81 as certified by PW6 in Crl. Appeal No.1750 of 2003 -10- Ext.P5 certificate issued by him. There is no other reliable evidence as well to establish the age of PW3 as being below sixteen years. Consequently, therefore, the case can be considered only assuming that PW3 is aged seventeen years as is contended by the appellant or at least that PW3 was above sixteen years. 10. The question as to whether the appellant did have sexual intercourse with PW3 does not at all gain importance in the instant case as it is the admitted case that he was having sexual intercourse with PW3 and according to the appellant, not on one occasion but several times as they were maintaining love affair and they had decided to enter into marriage. But the evidence of PW3/the victim does not at all support the stand of the defence so set up by the Crl. Appeal No.1750 of 2003 -11- appellant. She has denied the suggestion that she was in love with the appellant. She has also denied the suggestion made to her that it was on the promise of the appellant to marry her and consequently, it was on her interest that the appellant had sexual intercourse with her. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that the evidence of PW3 is disowning her statements in Ext.P3 complaint filed by her before the Circle Inspector of Police on the basis of which was the crime in this case registered drawing up Ext.P7 FIR. According to PW3/the victim of the alleged occurrence, the occurrence has taken place at about 4.30 p.m. on 02/10/94 while she was alone in her maternal house as her maternal grandmother and her maternal aunt had gone for cutting grass and her maternal uncles Crl. Appeal No.1750 of 2003 -12- had gone for their work. She deposed that at about 4.30 p.m on that day the appellant came to the courtyard of her house while she was within the house and asked her about her maternal grandmother and maternal aunt and when she answered that they had gone for cutting grass, the appellant entered into the house, caught hold of her hand, took her to the internal room by the side of the room in the middle; closed her mouth; pushed her down on to the floor; raised her skirt and blouse; forcibly removed her jetty and the appellant removing the jetty worn by him also, committed rape on her. According to her, her attempt at raising alarm was not successful as the appellant had closed her mouth. After describing the process by the victim who is a rustic witness, she stated that on the appellant performing the act white sticky Crl. Appeal No.1750 of 2003 -13- substance fell on her vagina and on her thighs and thereafter, the appellant stood up; threatened her that she would be done away with if she discloses of the occurrence to anyone else. She further stated that thereafter, she did not have menses but she did not tell anybody regarding the occurrence as she was afraid and it was only when the pregnancy was almost eight months old that her maternal grandmother asked her seeing her stomach and her fatigue as to what happened and it was then that she disclosed of the occurrence to her maternal grandmother. According to her, enquiries were made about the appellant then and that he had by that time left the place and absconded. 12. On 29/07/95, PW3 delivered a male child at the Government Thaluk Headquarters Hospital, Sulthan Bathery. PW3 deposed that Crl. Appeal No.1750 of 2003 -14- from the hospital a complaint was given to the police and that is Ext.P3; that it was written by a person who was accompanying her uncle and that was being so written in the hospital itself. It is her case that she was not aware that complaint has to be lodged and however, after it was disclosed to the grandmother the accused also was not available in the locality and however, that she was giving the details for writing Ext.P3 complaint. Though she stated that after delivery, she gave complaint before the Womens Commission and DNA test was conducted and the result showed that the father of the child is the appellant, that is not produced before this court and however, that has no relevance at all in the circumstances of this case wherein the defence of the appellant is that he was maintaining sexual intercourse with PW3 on several Crl. Appeal No.1750 of 2003 -15- occasions and his defence is only that it was with consent. 13. In cross examination PW3 has stated that her father died while she was seven or eight months old and her mother died while she was studying in the third standard; that she has no brothers or sisters and that as her mother was mentally ill she was being admitted in school by her maternal grandmother. She has emphatically stated in cross examination that the appellant had not offered to marry her; that she was not in love with the appellant and that she was not having sexual intercourse with the appellant on her taking the initiative as suggested. It is true that as contended by the counsel for the appellant, the statement in Ext.P3/complaint is that the appellant had offered to marry PW3 and was having sexual intercourse with her and that Crl. Appeal No.1750 of 2003 -16- when informed of the pregnancy, the appellant disowned her and that despite appealing to him not to spoil her future, he had threatened her saying that she would be done away with in case his name is disclosed to anyone and it was therefore, that she did not disclose of the occurrence to her friends, teachers or to members of her house. 14. It is worthy to note that PW3 had stated already that Ext.P3/complaint was being written by someone who was accompanying his uncle to the hospital while she was in the hospital delivering a male child. There is absolutely no authenticity as regards the contents in Ext.P3 that it was as stated by PW3 that the contents in Ext.P3 were written. In fact, in cross examination she was not at all asked as to whether she was signing in Ext.P3 after reading Ext.P3 or after Ext.P3 Crl. Appeal No.1750 of 2003 -17- was read over to her. In all probability, Ext.P3/complaint must have been caused to be written up by someone with a view to set the law in motion as in relation to the matters mentioned therein the uncle of PW3 and the one who had accompanied him had knowledge that she has already delivered a child and the person who was responsible for the pregnancy had also been disclosed. The complaint was written in a manner so as to cause the law being set in motion and probably with a view to have PW3 married by the appellant. On the basis of the testimony given by PW3 contrary to the statement in Ext.P3, I am not of the view that PW3 can be disbelieved. 15. The further question is ignoring Ext.P3 whether the testimony given by PW3 can be stated to be unreliable. PW3 has stated that she did not disclose of the occurrence to Crl. Appeal No.1750 of 2003 -18- anyone being afraid of the appellant and she did not disclose the occurrence even after she ceased to have menses and was disclosed at least to her maternal grandmother only two months prior to her being taken to hospital for delivery. According to her, she had gone to the school till the date of delivery; that she was in the class up to 4.00 p.m and she went to hospital as she was having pain in the stomach and it was the Doctor who diagnosed it as delivery pain. She has stated that she was not aware that complaint has to be given and further that she was afraid and also that she is not aware as to when the appellant absconded from the place or as to up to which date she saw the appellant. 16. On a careful scrutiny of the entire evidence given by PW3, I do not find any reason to disbelieve the said rustic witness Crl. Appeal No.1750 of 2003 -19- who continued to go to school till the date of her delivery and was not aware when she felt pain that it was delivery pain except that she was having pain to her stomach. 17. PW4 is her maternal grandmother. She has corroborated the testimony of PW3 when she says that on questioning PW3 on seeing her abdomen and her fatigue as to what happened she disclosed of the occurrence and that was only two months prior to her delivery and that she disclosed the name of the appellant only on persuasion and was reluctant to disclose the name as she was having apprehension that she would be done away with as had been threatened by the appellant. However, according to her, it is after delivering that the name of the appellant was disclosed by PW3. She has also corroborated the testimony of PW3 when she says that the appellant was not in the Crl. Appeal No.1750 of 2003 -20- locality as he had left the place. She has given evidence that she had not gone to school at all and when asked about her age and the age of her children and their date of birth, she has deposed that she does not know any of those dates. The evidence of PW4 shows that she is an illiterate rustic witness and it did not occur to her that a complaint has to be given to the police at least when PW3 disclosed of her pregnancy in the eighth month of the pregnancy. It is worthy to note that the appellant has no case that PW3 or PW4 was having any animosity towards him so as to foist this case against him. 18. It is too much to accept the defence contention that the appellant was ever ready to marry PW3 who was in love with him, but herself and her family members did not agree to the marriage. There is no suggestion even Crl. Appeal No.1750 of 2003 -21- made to PWs.3 and 4 as to whether the appellant did not marry PW3 only because of such refusal. It is common knowledge that in a case of this nature especially when no complaint had been given till PW3 delivered a child, that if at all there was an offer to marry PW3 from the side of the appellant that would have been accepted and PW3 would have been given in marriage to the appellant. The evidence of DWs.1 and 2 in the circumstances that PW3 and the appellant were in love and that they mediated for a marriage after PW3 became pregnant and it is only because of the refusal of PW3 and her relatives that the marriage could not be had cannot at all be believed. The stand taken by the appellant in the written statement of defence filed by him also cannot in the circumstances, be accepted or believed. Crl. Appeal No.1750 of 2003 -22- 19. In this context, it is worthy to note that it was submitted on one occasion before this Court that the accused has married the victim and are residing together. This Court was not prepared to swallow the submission so made. It was therefore, directed by this Court that the appellant should appear in court with the victim if at all they are married and they are residing together. Accordingly, when the case was posted for the purpose neither the appellant nor the victim nor the counsel turned up to make any submission and it was therefore, that this appeal was adjourned to this day as a last chance awaiting representation of the appellant to have the case considered further. Today, the learned Senior Counsel Sri.V.A.Mathai has appeared and argued the appeal and submitted that he has instructions from Adv. Sri.Lalji P. Thomas who is appearing Crl. Appeal No.1750 of 2003 -23- for the appellant. This suggests that the submission caused to be made that the appellant has married the victim is false and can be attributed only to the ingenious attempt on the part of the appellant to prejudice this court in his favour. Thus, this is not a case wherein any interference in the judgment of the court below is warranted when it is found that the appellant was having sexual intercourse with the victim/PW3 without her consent and that was trespassing into her house and intimidating her. The conviction has therefore, only to be confirmed. 20. It is finally contended before me by the learned counsel for the appellant that mercy be shown to the appellant who is an youngster. The plea can fall only on deaf ears as the victim also was young and her future is ruined by the wrongful act of the appellant. Crl. Appeal No.1750 of 2003 -24- The sentence provided for the offence of rape is for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may be for life or for a term which may extend to ten years with also fine. It is true that for adequate and special reasons mentioned in judgment, as correctly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, this court can impose a term of imprisonment less than seven years. But I fail to understand as to what is the special or adequate reason which this Court can mention to award a punishment lesser than the minimum prescribed by the statute when a minor girl aged seventeen years according to the appellant himself had been raped, impregnated and she has delivered a child and herself and the child is living at the mercy of her family members and there is no one to take care of her and her child, as a husband or father Crl. Appeal No.1750 of 2003 -25- should. The court below has awarded the minimum punishment possible and I confirm the sentence so awarded by the court below. This appeal deserves only to be dismissed in the circumstances. 21. In the result, I dismiss this Criminal Appeal confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the court below against the appellant. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/- Crl. Appeal No.1750 of 2003 -26- K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ Crl. Appeal No.1750 of 2003 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2008 ORDER This appeal was posted to this day granting ten days' time from 11/01/08 in view of the submission of the counsel for the Crl. Appeal No.1750 of 2003 -27- appellant that the accused has married the victim and are residing together and it was felt necessary to ascertain the truth of the submission. It was therefore, that counsel was instructed to direct the parties to appear in person before this Court. Today, when the case is called the appellant has not appeared with the victim and the counsel for the appellant also is absent and there is also no representation for the appellant. Adjourned as a last chance awaiting representation of the appellant to have the case considered further. Post on 29/01/08. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-