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

2014 Supreme(Ker) 219

High Court of Kerala
K.T. SANKARAN & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
Dharmarajan
Versus
State of Kerala rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
CRL. A. No. 877 of 2002
Decided On: 04-04-2014

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant:Raju Joseph, Senior Advocate, George Kutty Mathew, Advocate.
For the Respondent:T. Asaf Ali, Director General of Prosecution, Ranjith, Biju Meenattoor, Public Prosecutor, K. Gopalakrishna Kurup, P.K. Ravisankar, Suresh Babu Thomas, C.S. Ajayan, P. Ravindra Babu, K.V. Bhadra Kumari, Anila George, V.K. Sunil, S. Nandagopal, Advocates.

Headnote:

Penal Code 1860 - Section 361 - Evidence Act 1872 - Section 114A - Presumption under - Kidnapping - Unlawful custody of minor girl - Whether person who is alleged to have committed the offence under S.366 was a party to the offence of kidnapping - purpose of prostitution or illicit intercourse - Held, since the victim girl was in the convent school, the lawful guardian was the person who was lawfully entrusted with the care and custody of the minor girl, going by the the explanation. The offence was complete when the girl left the convent school and boarded the bus as instructed or commanded by the first accused - it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the person who is alleged to have committed the offence under S.366A was a party to the offence - expression "lets to hire" implies making over of a minor in perpetuity or for a term. The term "otherwise disposes of " is of wide import. It does not necessarily imply an actual change of possession.

Judgment :

K.T. Sankaran, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal reveals the sad story of a girl who was aged only sixteen years and four months at the relevant time and who was allegedly subjected to sexual abuse, rape and gang rape by more than forty persons at different places in the State of Kerala and in the State of Tamil Nadu. The name of the victim is withheld and she is described as 'the victim girl' in the judgment. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that the appellant (Dharmarajan), accused No.1 (Raju) and accused No.2 (Usha) hatched a criminal conspiracy to kidnap the victim girl from the lawful custody of her guardian and to subject her to sexual abuse and provide her to others for illicit sexual intercourse. In furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, the victim girl was kidnapped from the lawful custody on 16.1.1996, confined her secretly at several places in the State of Kerala and in Tamil Nadu and she was subjected to rape and gang rape by several persons by keeping the victim girl under illegal custody. It was also alleged that the appellant robbed her gold and silver ornaments during the period in which she was kept under illegal custody. The prosecution alleged that the victim girl was missing on 16.1.1996 and she came back to her father only on 26.2.1996 and the offences were committed during that period.

2. The victim girl was studying in the IXth standard at Little Flower Girls High School, a convent school, at Nallathanni, Munnar. Her father was the Postmaster of Munnar Post Office. The victim girl's mother was working as a Nurse in the hospital at Sooryanelli Estate. The father, mother and sister of the victim girl were residing in the quarters allotted to her mother at Sooryanelli Estate. The victim girl was studying for VIIIth standard at Mount Carmal Girls High School, Kottayam during 1994-95. She was staying in the school hostel. Later she discontinued her stay in the hostel and started staying at the house of her uncle Robert at Mundakkayam. While the victim girl was staying with her parents at Sooryanelli Estate, she was attending tuition classes conducted by one Kuttiyamma teacher at Devikulam. The victim girl used to travel along with her father in a bus called “Companion”, which was plying in Sooryanelli-Munnar- Devikulam route. The first accused Raju was working as the checker/conductor in the “Companion” bus. He got acquainted with the victim girl which gradually developed into a love affair. The prosecution alleged that the appellant (Dharmarajan), accused No.1 (Raju) and accused No.2 (Usha) hatched a criminal conspiracy to induce the victim girl to accompany Raju, her lover, and to take the victim girl out of lawful custody. Their idea was to take the victim girl to various places and to compel her for sexual intercourse with many persons.

3. The prosecution alleged that, during the relevant period, the victim girl used to travel in “Companion” bus from Sooryanelli to Devikulam for attending tuition classes. Her father used to travel in that bus from Sooryanelli to Munnar. Fathima, the victim girl's classmate in the tuition class, was her close friend. The victim girl had taken a photo album containing photos of her family members to the tuition class. The album was shown to Fathima as well. Fathima took the album for showing the same to her family members. However, when Fathima brought back the album to be given to the victim girl, she (Fathima) showed that album to her friends while travelling in the “Companion” bus. On seeing the album, accused No.1 (Raju) took that album and promised to Fathima that the album would be given to the victim girl. The album was kept by accused No.1 (Raju). The victim girl later joined Little Flower Girls High School at Nallathanni, Munnar for the next academic year. During that period, accused No.1 (Raju) used to meet her at the premises of the school compound during lunch interval on Fridays and also while travelling with her father from Sooryanelli to Munnar and





























































































































































































































































































































































































































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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top