Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 30.04.2009 IN SC 87/2008 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOTTAYAM
APPELLANT/ACCUSED: SHIJU, S/O PONNAPPAN, THEKECHIRAYIL HOUSE, KADUTHURITHY KARA, KADUTHURITHY VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.T.K.RAJESHKUMAR KUM.APARNA SOMARAJAN SRI.P.KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR KOLLAMALA RESPONDENTS/STATE: STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.N.PRABHAKARAN THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard the counsel for the appellant and the learned Amicus Curiae Sri. Anand Kalyanakrishnan and the Public Prosecutor.
2. It is a case wherein the police has charge
sheeted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 342, 506(i) and 366 IPC. But the trial court found that no satisfactory evidence was adduced in order to prove the guilt of accused for the offence under Sections 354, 342 and 506 (i), hence, acquitted, of the said charges, but found guilty of the offence under Section 366 IPC and convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and a compensation of Rs.25,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, against which the sole accused came up in appeal.
3. PW1 is the victim, a minor girl, aged only 16 as on the date of commission of offence and while she
was on the way to school, the accused stopped her and forcibly took her into an autorikshaw against her will and she was taken to the house of accused at first instigated her for a cohabitation by showing some blue film and she was also forced to take liquor (beer). Nobody was there in the house at that time. All kind of attempt was made over her so as to force her to satisfy his lust. This would show the gravity of the offence. PW1, the victim, had given oral evidence and she had given a vivid picture as to what actually happened on the alleged day of the commission of the offence. It stands corroborated by the FIS and FIR which were given within time without any inordinate delay, wherein the name and details of the accused were also disclosed. She was immediately examined by PW12, a lady doctor, her statement also gives sufficient corroboration to the oral testimony of the victim, PW1. The accused was aged 27 at that time and this would show the gravity of the offence. The medical examination report prepared by PW2 and proved through her would give sufficient
corroboration to the oral testimony of the victim, PW1. Necessarily, the conviction rendered by the court below for the offence under Section 366 IPC against the accused, deserves no interference.
4. On coming into the question of sentence, what
is ordered by the trial court comes to five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine amount of Rs.25,000/- with default sentence, presumably on the reason that the victim was aged only 16, and the accused was aged 27 at that time and she was forced to discharge his lust on the alleged day of commission of offence by taking her to his residence by force and give her some intoxicating liquor and also instigated to discharge his lust by showing some blue film. It is really a menace to the society at large, especially to the minor girl. The sentence should reflect the gravity of the offence and should give a proper message to the society at large. By taking into account that subsequently he entered into a marriage and now living with his wife and children,
a reformative approach is adopted by reducing the substantive sentence to rigorous imprisonment for two months and a fine amount of Rs.25,000/- with the default sentence as ordered by the trail court. The appellant is also entitled to set off of the period of pre-trial detention, if any. The appeal is allowed in part accordingly.
Sd/- P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE msp