SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(Ker) 9

High Court of Kerala
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN
Valliyoth Karunan
Versus
State of Kerala
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1875 of 2003
Decided on : 04-01-2011

Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioner:B.V. Joy Sanker, Jacob Chacko, Advocates. For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor.

The evidentiary value of a victim's statement to a doctor, the competency of the victim to testify, and the absence of a credible defense in a rape case.

Headnote:

Conviction - Rape - Indian Penal Code - Section 376

Fact of the Case:

The revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced for an offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code for raping a mentally challenged victim. The victim, a maid servant, was found unconscious in a toilet with injuries, and medical examination confirmed rape.

Finding of the Court:

The courts below found the accused guilty based on the victim's medical evidence, witness testimonies, and the absence of a credible defense. The appellate court upheld the conviction and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.25,000.

Issues: The key issues included the competency of the victim to testify, the evidentiary value of her statement to the doctor, and the absence of resistance or struggle due to the victim's mental condition.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the medical evidence of rape, the victim's mental condition preventing her from testifying, and the absence of a credible defense to uphold the conviction.

Final Decision: The court confirmed the conviction and sentence, dismissing the revision and directing the petitioner to appear before the court to suffer the sentence.

Judgment :

C. R.

1. The revision petitioner stands convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- in default of which, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two years, he having been found guilty of an offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Such conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court is confirmed in appeal. Hence this revision.

2. The allegation against the accused is that at about 7:45 p.m. on 18.11.1995, he raped the victim, aged about 28 years then. The scene of occurrence is alleged to be the lane near a public road. The prosecution version is that, the victim, a maid servant in the house of PW4 was returning from a Temple; that she came to the shop of PW5 and enquired about the availability of bus and then went in the auto rickshaw of the accused, leading to her being raped by the accused. The accused then accompanied the victim to the residence of PW4, where the victim entered a toilet which is not attached to the house and bolted from inside; the accused informed the mother of the victim and few neighbours that the victim has locked herself up in the toilet; thereupon the neighbours forced the toilet open and found the victim unconscious; she was taken to the local hospital and from there to the Medical College hospital where she was admitted and treated; the victim told the doctor who examined her that it was the accused who ravished, which led to the injuries that were recorded by the doctor. The name of the accused has been recorded in Ext.P1, the medical examination report prepared by PW1, the doctor who recorded having found to fresh tear to the victim's hymen.

3. After adverting to and considering the legal evidence on record, the trial judge found the accused guilty. That has been confirmed in appeal. Examining the material evidence and the findings of the courts below, the question for consideration is as to whether those findings, conviction and sentence call for interference in revision.

4. During trial, the victim was called to tender evidence as PW10. She could not speak anything. She was disoriented. CW1 psychiatrist was examined in support of Ext.C1 report which showed the mental condition of the victim. She suffers from Schizophrenia and cannot remember past incidents. It is in this background that the evidence was considered by the courts below.

5. The continuous presence of the accused and his proved involvement even in attracting the attention of the neighbours, the mother and the sister of the victim to the toilet wherein the victim bolted herself and his accompanying the victim and others to the hospital are pointed out by his learned counsel as strong circumstances which point to his innocence, for otherwise, he could have fled the scene of occurrence and had every chance of escaping even suspicion. His learned counsel further argued that the victim being a Schizophrenic, there is abundant chance of her having hallucinations and also fanciful thoughts, including about sex, and this would have led to the injury to her hymen. He pointed out that there is no evidence at all, or even any allegation, of any struggle and of the victim having suffered any injury on account of that. He heavily relied on the fact that the chemical examination of the undergarments of the victim, recovered from the toilet, did not contain any scientific evidence regarding the presence of semen though the first information statement proceeds as if there was completion of sexual intercourse, including ejaculation. Reliance was also placed on the fact that there was no chemical examination of the vaginal smear of the victim.

6. The accused does not stand with any allegation against any of the witnesses including the mother and sister of the victim or even the victim, of having had any animosity towards him or any other reason for foisting the charge on him, who going by the materials, was a married man with two children age








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top