IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2009 / 19TH SRAVANA 1931 CRL.A.No. 1060 of 2008() ------------------------ SC.65/2006 of II ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CP.138/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, NORTH PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT: ------------------------------------------ BAIJU, S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY, C.NO.5889, CENTRAL PRISON, VIYYOOR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. MR.BIJU MARTIN(STATE BRIEF) RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY C.I. OF POLICE, NORTH PARUR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/03/2009, THE COURT ON 10/08/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- Criminal Appeal No.1060 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T This is a jail appeal filed by the convicted accused undergoing sentence imposed for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. Appeal being admitted, and taken on file, Advocate Sri.Biju Martin, in the panel of advocates for State Brief was appointed to address arguments on the merits of the appeal. 2. The appellant, hereinafter referred to as the accused, was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 450 IPC on a charge laid by the Circle Inspector of Police, North Paravoor Police Station. He pleaded not guilty. After trial, the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam found him guilty of the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and convicted him thereunder. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- with default term of rigorous imprisonment for one year more. Fine, if realised, was directed to be paid as compensation to PW1, the victim of rape, under Section 357(1) Criminal Appeal No.1060 of 2008 2 (b) Cr.P.C. He was found not guilty of the offence under Section 450 IPC and acquitted of that offence. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed for the offence under Section 376 IPC, the accused has preferred this appeal. 3. Prosecution case in a nut shell is thus: PW1, the victim of rape, is an invalid with both her lower limbs immobile due to post polio paralysis. On the afternoon of 10.5.2004, while she was all alone in her residence, the accused, a relative, came there and ravished her by force against her will, is the gist of the acquisition. Hearing her cries, a close by neighbour, PW3, rushed to the spot, and then she found the victim weeping with the accused standing nearby. PW1, the victim, did not disclose to her as to what happened, but, later, when her mother returned with her sister, at about 4.00 pm in the evening, the incident was revealed. PW1 was immediately taken in the taxi of PW2 to the police station and after recording her P1 statement and registering crime under P1(a) FIR, she was sent over for medical examination. Investigation of the crime was taken over by PW8, the Circle Inspector of Police, North Criminal Appeal No.1060 of 2008 3 Paravoor Police station. P2 mahazar was prepared over the scene of crime and dress of the victim with a piece of cloth soaked in blood seen at the spot of crime was seized describing them in the mahazar. The accused was arrested and the dress worn by him were also seized into custody. The material objects were sent over to scientific examination and P7 is the report received after such examination. After completion of the investigation, charge was laid against the accused indicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 450 IPC. 4. After committal, the case was made over to the II Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam for trial and disposal. The accused was initially enlarged on bail but he made himself scarce. Subsequent to his arrest, during trial he continued in custody. A counsel on his request was appointed by the court to defend him in the case. After complying with the formalities, the Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 450 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined PWs 1 to 8, got Criminal Appeal No.1060 of 2008 4 marked P1 to P8 and identified MOs 1 to 5 to prove its case. The accused questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C denying the prosecution evidence reiterated his plea of innocence. He contended that the case had been falsely foisted against him by the mother of the victim since he had refused to vote for a party in the election held on the date of occurrence as demanded by her. Though such a defence was canvassed no defence evidence was adduced. 5. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing both sides and appreciating the materials tendered, found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC, and convicted and sentenced him as indicated. He was not found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 450 IPC and acquitted of that offence. 6. I heard the learned counsel for the accused and also the learned Public Prosecutor. 7. Learned counsel for the accused assailed the conviction imposed against him by the court below contending that it is unsustainable under law and facts. There is no Criminal Appeal No.1060 of 2008 5 convincing evidence, oral or documentary to inculpate the accused for the grave offence imputed and the medical evidence tendered by the prosecution is hardly sufficient to establish the prosecution case that PW1, the victim, had been ravished by the accused, submits the learned counsel. PW1, the victim, in her evidence before the court has not stated that she was raped by the accused and that being so, the conviction of the accused under Section 376 IPC, according to the counsel, was not only not justified, but, illegal. She did not disclose to PW3, a close by neighbour, who is alleged to have rushed to the spot, soon after the occurrence, that she was subjected to a sexual assault and rape by the accused, is a material circumstance discrediting the prosecution case, submits the counsel. At any rate, the prosecution evidence, most particularly, medical evidence does not disclose there was penetration and that being absent, the offence under Section 376 IPC has not been made out, and at the most, only the offence falling under Section 354 IPC is applicable, according to the counsel. P7 analysis, report over the material objects sent over to the laboratory does not disclose the presence Criminal Appeal No.1060 of 2008 6 of 'semen' is also highlighted by the counsel to contend that the prosecution case as to the ravishing of the victim against her will is unsustainable on the materials produced in the case. Yet another argument canvassed by the counsel to assail the prosecution case is built upon the medical evidence that at the relevant time, the victim, PW1, was undergoing menstruation period and so much so, the presence of blood in her cloth has little significance and it cannot be used as an incriminating circumstance to connect the accused with the grave crime. Even if the evidence of PW1, the victim, is found reliable and acceptable as to a sexual assault on her by the accused it would not constitute a rape, according to the counsel, in the nature of the medical evidence tendered. The accused at the most can be found guilty only for the offence punishable under Section 354 as the overtacts imputed establish only of outraging the modesty of the victim and not for the grave offence of rape for which he was found guilty and convicted. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no merit in the appeal and the materials tendered by the prosecution unerringly establish in Criminal Appeal No.1060 of 2008 7 unmistakable terms that PW1, a post polio paralytic invalid person, while, she was all alone in her house, was brutally ravished by the accused against her will and the offence committed by the accused for the offence squarely fall under Section 376 IPC and he was rightly and correctly convicted for such offence by the court below. The evidence of PW1, the victim of rape and also other material witnesses is found to unblemished by the learned Sessions Judge and the accused has no case that any of them had any grouse or illwill to implicate him falsely in a crime of this grave nature. He made some imputation against the mother of the victim, but, that too remained unsubstantiated, submits the learned public prosecutor, urging that there is no merit in the challenges raised against the conviction of the accused. 8. The point arising for consideration in the appeal is thus: Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the grave offence of rape on the victim, PW1, with reliable and convincing legal evidence. Criminal Appeal No.1060 of 2008 8 9. I have examined the materials produced in the case with reference to the submissions made by the counsel on both sides. PW1 is the victim of rape. The accused is, admittedly, a relative of the victim. He is the brother of the husband of her aunt, the younger sister of her mother. Her evidence would show that she was all alone in the house when the ghastly and inhuman assault on her person occurred in broad day light. The evidence of PW3, a close by neighbour and PW7, the police officer who recorded her P1 statement would show that apart from having post polio paralytic causing immobility to both her limbs she had much difficulty to speak properly. The evidence of PW7 would show that P1 FI statement was prepared from her soon after the occurrence spending nearly 45 minutes. In that backdrop, her evidence as PW1 before the court has to be appreciated. The learned Sessions Judge, who had the opportunity to watch her demeanour and deportment found her testimony reliable, trustworthy and convincing. After going through her testimony, I find no reason to take a different view. In the cross examination of the victim, PW1, it is noticed, other Criminal Appeal No.1060 of 2008 9 than raising a feeble challenge that no incident as stated by her occurred, the material circumstances deposed by her with regard to the brutal rape committed on her by the accused remained uncontroverted. No circumstance whatsoever has been brought out from the victim to doubt the intrinsic worth of her testimony. In a case involving the offence of rape, the evidence of the victim, the prosecutrix, if found reliable, no further corroboration is required for its acceptance. Such being the position of law, on the sworn testimony of PW1, the victim itself, which is found to be trustworthy and convincing, prosecution has established its case that she was brutally raped by the accused and thereby he committed the offence under Section 376 IPC. I find no merit in the submission made by the learned counsel for the accused that the evidence of the victim or medical evidence tendered by the prosecution is insufficient to show there was penetration and as such the offence as alleged has not been made out. PW5, the doctor who examined the victim, has noted injuries on the vulva of the victim and has opined that such injuries could have happened due to rape. The doctor has also noticed from the Criminal Appeal No.1060 of 2008 10 injuries so suffered by the victim fresh blood was oozing out and that could be differentiated from the blood caused by menstruation. The medical evidence tendered by the doctor would also show apart from disability caused by post polio paralysis causing immobility to her lower limbs, the victim had history of epilepsy. The presence of the accused in the house of the victim soon after the occurrence is deposed to by PW3, a close by neighbour, who rushed to the spot on hearing the cries of the victim. She would state when she reached the spot, the victim was found to weeping and the accused was seen standing nearby the accused seeing her folded his hands in 'namasthe' stating he was present there. The accused has no case, not even a suggestion, when PW3 was subjected to cross examination that she had any grouse or illwill to perjure against him before a court of law that too implicate him falsely in a grave offence of rape. PW4 is the maternal aunt of the victim and the accused is her husband's younger brother. Her version would show, after attending a wedding when she returned with her sister, mother of the victim, by 4 O' clock in the evening, the victim was found Criminal Appeal No.1060 of 2008 11 dishevelled and weeping. PW1 disclosed to her that the accused had committed rape on her. Presence of the accused in the same house at that point of time is also deposed by PW3. She would also state, soon on knowing of the incident, an altercation took place between her husband and the accused. The tell tale circumstances as disclosed by evidence of PW3 closely related to the victim and also the accused, lend enough assurance that what has been stated by the victim PW1 is true and nothing but wholly true. There is also the evidence of PW2, a taxi driver, a totally disinterested witness, in whose vehicle soon after the occurrence PW1, the victim, was taken to police station and then to hospital. His evidence would show the mother of the victim, immediately on knowing the incident, disclosed to him that she was ravished by the accused and sought his assistance to go over to the police station. Such being the evidence tendered by the prosecution and it remaining unimpeached and proved by the attenuating circumstances presented, the inescapable conclusion is inevitable that the accused committed brutal rape on the victim, PW1, who suffered immobility to her lower limbs by post Criminal Appeal No.1060 of 2008 12 polio paralysis. 10. There is no merit in the submission made by the counsel for the accused that the offence made out against te accused at the most would only fall under Section 354 IPC outraging the modesty of the victim. Absence of 'semen' in P7 analysis report in the given facts of the case is an innocuous circumstance in no way affecting the merit of the prosecution case. PW1, the victim, in her oral evidence has not specifically deposed to penetration, is irrelevant and immaterial viewed in the backdrop of her physical disabilities including difficulty in speech, and particularly appreciated with reference to the medical evidence which unerringly demonstrate that she had suffered injuries to vulva indicating there was penetration. Opinion of PW5, the doctor, in the given facts of the case assume much significance which corroborate the version of the victim she was subjected to an inhuman rape at the hands of the accused. 11. In the proved facts and circumstances of the case, I find the guilt of the accused for the offence of rape imputed against him was brought home by the materials tendered by the Criminal Appeal No.1060 of 2008 13 prosecution and he was rightly and correctly convicted and sentenced by the court below, and the challenges raised against his conviction are meritless. The learned Sessions Judge, it is seen, acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 450 IPC for the reason that his entry into the house of PW1 was with permission. Even if entry was with permission, it is needless to point out that when it was followed by an assault on the person of the victim ravishing her against her will, presence of the accused in the house became unlawful as to having remained with an intend to constitute the offence which is sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 450 IPC. Since State has not preferred any appeal against the acquittal of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 450 IPC, any dilation on that question will have only academic value and hence I refrain from doing so. 11. Now on the sentence imposed against the accused in the given facts of the case and having regard to the physical disability suffered by the victim, I find punishment imposed by the court below sentencing the accused to undergo rigorous Criminal Appeal No.1060 of 2008 14 imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- with default term of rigorous imprisonment of one year more cannot be considered as excessive or unreasonable. No interference with the sentence imposed on the accused arises for consideration. The appeal is devoid of any merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-