Back
1998 Supreme(Ker) 296
Judges : K.A.MOHAMED SHAFI
Thomas Alias Thomachan - Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala - Respondent
Case No : Crl. Appeal No. 107 of 1993 and Crl. M.P. No. 740 of 1998
Decided On : 07/21/1998
Advocates Appeared :
For the Appellant: T.V. Prabhakaran, Advocate. For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor, P.N. Sukumaran.
The central legal point established is the reliance on credible victim testimony, forensic evidence, and the inapplicability of Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. for contradictory affidavits.
Headnote:
Section 376 - Rape - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the evidence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the provisions of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) regarding compensation to the victim. The court also considered the applicability of Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. for additional evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted of raping a woman and challenged the lower court's decision. The victim, a political worker, was raped on her way home after a procession. The accused denied the allegation, claiming enmity and a false case against him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty based on the victim's testimony, medical evidence, and forensic analysis. The court dismissed the appeal and the application for additional evidence, upholding the lower court's findings and sentence.
Issues: The main issues were the credibility of the victim's testimony, the applicability of additional evidence, and the validity of the accused's defense.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the victim's consistent testimony, forensic evidence, and the inapplicability of Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. for accepting contradictory affidavits as additional evidence.
Final Decision: The court confirmed the lower court's finding of guilt, conviction, and sentence, dismissing the appeal and the application for additional evidence.
The accused in Sessions Case No. 32 of 1990 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Thodupuzha has filed this appeal challenging the judgment dated 25-2-1993.
2. The accused was prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 376, I.P.C. on the basis of the charge-sheet laid by the Circle Inspector of Police, Idukki in Crime No. 170 of 1989 of the Idukki Police Station alleging that the appellant committed rape on a woman by name Aleyamma without her consent at about 9.15 p.m. on 24-8-1989 at the road in front of the house of Kozhithanath Kunjeep.
3. The first information in this case was given by the victim of the offence at about 10.30 p.m. on 24-8-1989 at the Idukki Police Station before PW-16 the Head Constable who registered the above Crime No. 170/89 against the respondent for an offence punishable under section 376, I.P.C. The Circle Inspector of Police conducted investigation and after completing the investigation laid charge-sheet against the respondent before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Thodupuzha. The Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Thodupuzha, after preliminary enquiry, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Thodupuzha as per order dated 11-5-1990 in C.P. No. 1/90. The Sessions Court, Thodupuzha made over this case to the Assistant Sessions Court, Thodupuzha for trial and disposal. The Assistant Sessions Court, Thodupuzha, after trial, found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under section 376, I.P.C. convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 2 years and directed to pay Rs. 4,000/- to the victim being compensation under section 357, Cr.P.C. The accused filed this appeal challenging the finding of guilt, conviction and sentence entered by the lower Court.
4. The prosecution case is as follows. P.W.-1, the victim of the offence, Aleyamma is an active worker and office-bearer of the 'Janadhipathya Mahila Association' which is a ladies' organisation of the Marxist Communist Party. The Association organized propagation processions in three wings in the Idukki District on 24-8-1989. The procession in one wing was led by an Advocate Smt. Mary Syriac, who was also an office-bearer of the organisation, and examined as PW-2 in this case. P.W. 1 prosecutrix, her friend Mrs. Leela Sukumaran and others ladies had participated in the procession on 24-8-89. Late in the evening, PW-1 and Leela Sukumaran left the procession and went home. They first went to the house of Mrs. Leela Sukumaran. They reached there at about 8 p.m. and from there Leela Sukumaran who was examined as PW-3, her daughter PW-4 and a boy in the neighbourhood PW-5 accompanied PW-1 to her house as it was in the night. While they were walking through the Mariyapuram-Thankamany road, they found the appellant coming driving his jeep. Leela Sukumaran stopped the jeep and asked the appellant to take PW-1 in the jeep to her house, PW-1 is the neighbour of the appellant. At that time PW-7 was also travelling in front seat of the jeep. The appellant agreed to give a lift to PW-1 and she sat on the back seat. On the way, PW-7 alighted from the jeep. Though the appellant made some amorous overtures while travelling in the jeep, PW-1 escaped from them. Then the appellant stopped the jeep in front of the house of Kanamkombil Sunny Pappan, PW-1 got down from the jeep and ran along the road towards her house. But the appellant chased her and caught her by force, held her tight with his hands from behind in a bending position, removed her sari, lifted her underskirt from behind, pulled down her shuddy and satisfied his lust from behind against her will and consent on the road in front of the house of Kozhithanath Kunjeep. Immediately after the incident PW-1 went to the house of Madathil Karunakara Pillai, who is the neighbour to the scene of occurrence and narrated the incident
