IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2009 / 29TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2700 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.642/2006 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK-I, ALAPPUZHA CC.786/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, CHERTHALA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------- BABU, S/O. KARUNAKARAN, KELAPPASSERY VEEDU, WARD NO.XI, KADAKKARAPPALLY PANCHAYATH, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.V.P.MOHAMMED NIYAZ SRI.K.RONALD JOSE RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATTANAKADU POLICE STATION, CHERTHALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2700 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of August, 2009. ORDER Heard counsel for petitioner and Public Prosecutor. 2. This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Alappuzha in Crl.Appeal No.642 of 2006 confirming conviction but modifying sentence of petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the Code”). Case is that on 13.5.2003 at about 7 p.m. petitioner trespassed into the house of PW1 and outraged modesty of PW2 (daughter of PW1) aged six years at the relevant time. Learned magistrate acquitted petitioner of the charge under Section 451 of the Code. Petitioner was found guilty, convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment and payment of fine for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 354 of the Code. Appellate court confirmed the conviction but modified the substantive sentence awarded under Section 354 of the Code. It is contended by learned counsel that there is no sufficient evidence to prove the incident. 3. Case is that on 13.5.2003 at about 7 p.m. while PW2 aged six years was sitting on a coat in her house petitioner entered the house, sat on the coat and put PW2 on his lap, forcibly kissed and outraged her modesty. Hearing the cry of PW2 her mother and a neighbour, PWs 1 and 3, respectively Crl.R.P.No.2700/2009 2 came to the spot. PW2 has given evidence regarding the alleged incident as stated by prosecution. PW1, first informant and mother has also given evidence in support of the prosecution. PW3, neighbour stated that hearing the cry of PW2 she went there and she was told about the incident by PWs 1 and 2. She also noticed abrasions and tenderness on the body of PW2. Herself and PW1 applied oil and massaged PW2. PW4 examined PW2 on 13.5.2003 at about 11.15 p.m. and issued Ext.P2, wound certificate. Evidence of PW4 and Ext.P2 show that PW2 suffered injuries on her body. (The details of injuries are extracted by the learned magistrate in paragraph ten (10) of the judgment.) PW5 is an occurrence witness but did not support the prosecution. PW6 is an attestor in Ext.P6, mahazar for scene of occurrence. PW7, head constable recorded the statement of PW1 at the hospital on 14.5.2003 at 3.30 p.m.. Ext.P3 is the body note of PW2 recorded by PW7 in the first information statement. PW8 is the Sub Inspector who conducted investigation. 4. As against that case of prosecution, version of petitioner is that he had lent Rs.50,000/- to the father of PW2 for purchasing a yamaha engine. On his demanding repayment of the amount, father of PW2 invited him to his house. Parents of PW2 requested him further time for repayment of the amount. He threatened to conduct sathyagraha by himself and children in front of the house of PW2. Then PW1 abused him and a false case has been registered against him. Petitioner examined DWs 1 to 3 to speak about the payment of money to the father of PW2. Learned counsel contends that in the light of the evidence given by DWs 1 to 3 conviction of petitioner is not sustainable. 5. I have gone through the judgments under challenge and hearing Crl.R.P.No.2700/2009 3 learned counsel for petitioner find that courts below have considered the evidence and come to the conclusion that petitioner voluntarily caused hurt and outraged modesty of PW2. There is evidence of PWs 1 to 3 regarding the alleged incident which gets corroboration from the evidence of PW4 and Ext.P2, wound certificate. It is also relevant to note that on the next day of the incident PW7, head constable could find tenderness and abrasions on the body of PW2 which has been noted in Ext.P1. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PWs 1 to 3. Even if it is assumed that there was a loan transaction between petitioner and father of PW2 that did not in any way affect the case of prosecution spoken by PWs 1 to 3. On going through the judgments under challenge and hearing learned counsel I find no reason to interfere with conviction of petitioner. 6. Sentence awarded to the petitioner does not call for interference at his instance considering the nature of offences proved against him. There is no merit in this revision. Resultantly this revision petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks