Back
C. S. SUDHA
Ajeesh @ Ajeeshkumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
JUDGMENT
In this appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., the appellant, the sole accused, in S.C.No.206 of 2010 on the file of the Court of Session, Kalpetta, Wayanad, challenges the conviction entered and sentence passed against him for the offences punishable under Sections 377 and 506 Part II IPC.
2. The prosecution case is that on 11/10/2008 at about 12:30 p.m. the accused had carnal intercourse against the order of nature with PW1 a minor boy aged 12 years and threatened to do away with his sister if he divulged the incident to others. Hence, as per the final report/charge sheet the accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 377 and 506 Part I IPC.
3. Crime no.174/2008, Thalapuzha police station, that is, Ext.P9 FIR was registered by PW8, the then Additional Sub Inspector of police, based on Ext.P1 FIS of PW1. The investigation was conducted by PW9, the then Additional Sub Inspector of Police, Thalapuzha, who on completion of investigation submitted the final report before the jurisdictional magistrate alleging the commission of the offences punishable under the aforementioned Sections by the accused.
4. On appearance of the accused, the jur
In sexual offences against children and women are on increase – Invoking provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 may send wrong message to society at large.
The court determined that the evidence only supported an attempt under Section 511 of Section 377 IPC, leading to a reduction in the sentence and emphasizing the serious nature of sexual offences aga....
The court affirmed the conviction under the POCSO Act while ruling that the appellant cannot be punished under both the POCSO Act and IPC for the same act, modifying the sentence accordingly.
The court upheld the conviction for sexual offences against a minor, confirming that intimidation can justify delays in lodging an FIR while the evidence for the charges, including threats and action....
The court ruled that a defendant cannot receive separate sentences for identical acts under different statutes, affirming conviction for one count while reducing the life sentence to 10 years based o....
The court upheld the conviction for rape under IPC, emphasizing that a reliable witness's testimony can suffice for conviction, despite procedural irregularities.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the victim's age and establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in cases of alleged kidnapping and rape.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
