IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2008 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1930 CRL.A.No. 394 of 2004() ----------------------- SC.107/2003 of SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA CP.33/2002 of JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT - I, IDUKKI .................... APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ----------- GOPALAN S/O. SANKARAN, CONVICT NO.8052, CENTRAL PRISON, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 12. BY ADV. ADV.T.K.SREEKALA RESPONDENT: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------- CRL.APPEAL NO. 394 OF 2004-A ----------------------------------------- Dated 27th May, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant challenges his conviction and sentence under Section 376 of the I.P.C., read with Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. The case of the prosecution is as follows: PW2 is a mentally retarded woman. She is the daughter of PW10 and the step daughter of PW1. The appellant was residing in the neighbouring house of PW2 along with his sister. When the appellant's sister was away and the parents of PW2 were away on work, the appellant enticed PW2, offering her betel for chewing and committed rape on her on several days. She became pregnant. The parents came to realise about the pregnancy of PW2 only after the pregnancy advanced about seven months. On coming to know of the pregnancy from PW2, PW1 lodged information before the Kulamavu Police Station by giving Ext.P1 F.I.Statement to PW8, the Sub Inspector of Police, CRL.A NO.394/2004 2 Kulamavu. The police registered crime No.43/2001 under Section 376 of the I.P.C and Section 3(1)(xi)of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Ext.P1(a) is the F.I.R. The Dy.S.P., Thodupuzha, who was examined as PW11 in the case, took over the investigation of the crime on 14.12.2001. He prepared Ext.P8 scene mahazar. He forwarded PW2 for medical examination to the Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Thodupuzha, where PW5 examined her and issued Ext.P3 certificate. PW11 arrested the accused on 15.12.2001. The accused was sent to PW6 doctor for potency test. PW6 conducted the test and issued Ext.P4 certificate. PW2 was sent to PW4, Consultant Clinical Psychologist of Sacred Heart Hospital, Painkulam for intelligence quotient test. Ext.P2 is the I.Q report issued by PW4, after examining PW2. The Village Officer prepared the site plan of the scene of occurrence, Ext.P7. The Tahsildar issued caste certificates of the accused and PW2 as Exts.P5 and P6 respectively. PW11 completed the investigation and laid the charge before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Idukki, who committed the case to the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha, as per C.P.No.33/2002. 3. After preliminary hearing, the Sessions Court framed charges against the accused, for the offences punishable under Section 376 of the I.P.C and Sections 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST (Prevention of CRL.A NO.394/2004 3 Atrocities) Act. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges. The prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 11 and marked Exts.P1 to P10. The accused was questioned on the circumstances which appeared against him in the evidence, under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The accused examined DW1, as defence witness. The trial court after hearing both sides, found the appellant guilty of the offences punishable under Section 376 of the I.P.C and also Sections 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 376, taking into account the special provisions contained in Section 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He was also directed to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. No separate sentence was awarded for the offence under Section 3(1)(xii) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The appellant challenges the conviction and sentence on various grounds in this criminal appeal. 4. We heard Smt.T.K.Sreekala, learned counsel for the appellant and also Sri.S.U.Nazar, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the version of P.Ws.2 and 3 lacks credence. PW2 not only goes to the neighbouring house of the appellant's sister, but also to other houses for getting betel and for seeing television CRL.A NO.394/2004 4 programmes. So, the chances of her being raped by others also cannot be ruled out, it is submitted. PW3 has animosity towards the accused for his refusal to give Rs.500/- to her. PW3 claims that PW2 has stated to her that the appellant is the father of the child in her womb. PW2 being retarded, it is not possible that she has disclosed the identity of the father of her child to PW3, submits the learned counsel for the appellant. The counsel for the appellant also points out that the appellant, at the relevant time, was aged 65 years and therefore, he was impotent. His first marriage was broken down because of his impotency, it is suggested. With the evidence available on record, it cannot be said that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the case beyond reasonable doubt, it is submitted. Alternatively, it is submitted that the conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 3 (1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not sustainable. If that be so, the accused may be awarded only the minimum mandatory punishment of 7 years imprisonment provided under Section 376 of the I.P.C., it is prayed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously disputed the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. According to him, the findings of the court below are based on the evidence on record and the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt, the guilt of the accused. Therefore, he prayed for CRL.A NO.394/2004 5 dismissal of the appeal. 6. The prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, for proving the offence of rape against the appellant. The learned Sessions Judge has recorded while examining PW2 that answers were being obtained from the witness with much difficulty and that too, on the prosecution repeating questions several times. The witness also shed tears when asked about the occurrence. While in the box, PW2 has stated that she had a child called Kannan. She pointed at the accused standing in the dock as the father of her child. Simultaneously she reacted, he must be kicked and killed. She also stated that she was enticed to the room of the accused by offering betel. She was taken to the inner room of the building and the appellant committed rape on her. She was threatened not to tell anyone about the incident. She also spoke about the actual commission of rape on her. PW2 further stated that the commission of rape was witnessed by PW3. In the cross- examination, she was asked who was Perappa. She pointed at the accused who was standing in the dock. Though she was cross-examined extensively, she was consistent in implicating the accused. 7. PW3, Usha is a resident of the neighbouring house. She stated that on one day morning, she heard a subdued cry from the residence of the accused, asking to release the person crying. Thereupon, PW3 stealthily CRL.A NO.394/2004 6 went close to the house of the appellant without creating any noise. Through the ventilator, she looked into the room and found that the accused was committing rape on PW2 and she was crying and requesting Perappa (accused) to get up or else she may die. PW3 further stated that the very same incident was repeated on the next day also. She is a coolie worker. When she has no work, she alone will be in the house. After the lapse of eight months after the rape, PW2 came to the house of PW3 and told her that her parents beat her alleging that a child is growing in her stomach. On another day, PW2 told PW3 that the father of the child is Gopalan Perappan (appellant). PW2 also confessed that she is afraid of telling the truth to her parents. So, they together went to the house of PW2 and told about the incident to her parents. The appellant had once misbehaved to PW3 some time earlier. Though the said witness was extensively cross-examined, nothing was brought out to discredit her version. A suggestion was made to the effect that PW3 requested the appellant to pay her Rs.500/-. Since he did not oblige, she has given false evidence against him. But, except the said bald suggestion, nothing has been brought out to prove the veracity of the suggestion. 8. PW4 Dr.Shaji Cheriyan proved Ext.P2 I.Q report. The same would show that the victim PW2 is incapable of giving any consent for CRL.A NO.394/2004 7 sexual intercourse. PW5 Dr.Betty Jose proved Ext.P3 medical report, which would show that PW2 was pregnant at the relevant time. PW6 Dr.Reji Jose proved the potency certificate issued in relation to the appellant. As per that report, there was nothing to show that he was impotent at the relevant time. 9. The fact that PW2 did not fully co-operate with the medical examination will not, in any way, affect the prosecution case. PW5, by Ext.P3 medical report proved that PW2 is pregnant. That means, she was subjected to sexual intercourse. It is common case that she was pregnant and later, she gave birth to a child also. Therefore, the lack of full medical examination of the victim after 7/8 months of the incident of rape, is of no consequence, as far as the prosecution case is concerned. The claim of the appellant that he is impotent, stands disproved by Ext.P4 potency certificate. Going by the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, we are of the view that the conclusion of the trial court regarding the reliability of their version is perfectly legal and valid. Their evidence stands corroborated by medical evidence also. The delay in lodging the FIR is evidently because of the reason that the victim was a mentally retarded woman. PW3 has also explained that she did not divulge the rape witnessed by her since the families of PW1 and the accused were quite friendly. She did not want to CRL.A NO.394/2004 8 mar their relationship. The said version of PW3 was believed by the Trial Judge. We think, it has been done so rightly. So, the materials on record would prove that PW2, a mentally retarded woman, who is incapable of giving consent, was subjected to sexual intercourse and she gave birth to a child. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 would prove that it was the appellant, who committed the act. The medical evidence would show that he was physically capable of doing that. In view of the above position, we find no reason to interfere with the finding of the trial court that the appellant committed rape on PW2. Therefore, the said finding is confirmed. 10. But, regarding the conviction of the accused under Sections 3(2) (v) and 3(1)(xii) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, we think the contention of the appellant has to be accepted. Section 3(2)(v) reads as follows: “(v) commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belong to such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine.” In this case, the appellant committed the offence of rape not because PW2 was a member of the Scheduled Tribe. So, we agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the offence under Section 3(2)(v) is not made CRL.A NO.394/2004 9 out in this case. Same is the case of the offence under Section 3(1)(xii), which reads as follows: “(xii) being in a position to dominate the will of a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and uses that position to exploit her sexually to which she would not have otherwise agreed.” In this case, the accused cannot be said to be in a position to dominate the will of PW2 and he used that position to exploit her. The victim in this case is incapable of being exploited by a person in authority, using his position or authority. She cannot comprehend whether somebody is in a high position or not. The appellant was not having any special position, enabling him to dominate over the victim. He was only a man in the neighbourhood. Therefore, the conviction under Sections 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is set aside. 11. The punishment of life imprisonment was imposed on the appellant, having regard to the provisions contained in Section 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Now that the conviction under the said provision is set aside, the court has got discretion to impose the sentence on the accused. Section 376 of the I.P.C provides that a person found guilty of the offence of rape can be punished under the said section, with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less CRL.A NO.394/2004 10 than seven years but which may be for life or for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. 12. In this case, as mentioned above, the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment was awarded only because of the finding of guilt under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Having regard to the facts of the case, we feel that the ends of justice will be met, if the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence of rape. The sentence of life imprisonment imposed on the appellant is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. The appellant is entitled to have the periods spent by him in custody during investigation/trial set off against the period he has to suffer imprisonment. We also feel that the default sentence of two years imprisonment for failure to pay the fine of Rs.50,000/- should be vacated and the trial court should be directed to take action under Section 421 of the Cr.P.C for recovery of the fine from the assets of the appellant. Accordingly, we uphold the imposition of fine of Rs.50,000/-. But, the direction to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years as default sentence is set aside. The Sessions Court shall take steps under Section 421 of the Cr.P.C to recover the fine of Rs.50,000/- from the assets of the appellant and pay the same to PW10, the CRL.A NO.394/2004 11 mother and natural guardian of PW2. The Criminal Appeal is disposed of as above. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE Nm/ CRL.A NO.394/2004 12 K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------- CRL.APPEAL NO.394/2004 ------------------------------------ JUDGMENT 27.05.2008.