Point of Law: It is settled position of law is that a mere suspicion, however, strong it may be, cannot be a substitute for acceptable evidence or sufficient to take place of proof and warrant a finding of guilt of accused.

JUDGMENT :

C.S.SUDHA, J.

This jail appeal filed under Section 383 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the sole accused in S.C.No.543/2016 on the file of the Court of Session, Thodupuzha, challenging the conviction entered and sentence passed against him for the offences punishable under Sections 450, 341, 323 and 326 IPC.

2. The prosecution case as described in the final report/charge sheet is as follows-The accused with the intention of committing rape, on 29/01/2016 at 11 a.m., trespassed into the house of PW1 bearing No. I/52, Kozhimullur House, Chinnakkal grama panchayat, which house is owned by Aneesh (PW6), wherein PW1was residing along with her family, wrongfully restrained her; voluntarily caused hurt to her by beating, kicking her and thereafter ravished her. The rape was committed in the hall of the aforesaid residential building. Hence the accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under the above-mentioned Sections.

3. On the basis of Ext.P1 FIS of PW1, the victim, given on 30/01/2016 at 10 a.m. and recorded by PW11, WCPO Santhanpara Police Station, Ext.P9 FIR, i.e., Crime No.50/2016, Santhanpara Police Station was registered by PW13, the Additional Sub Inspector of Police. PW14, the then S.I., Devikulam Police Station, conducted the investigation and submitted the charge sheet against the accused. On submission of the final report before the jurisdictional magistrate, the case was taken on file as C.P.No.70/2016, pursuant to which the case was committed to the Court of Session, Thodupuzha, which court took the case on file as S.C.No.543/2016.

4. When the accused appeared before the Court of Session, he was furnished with copies of all the prosecution records. On 15/02/2017, the court framed a charge for the offences punishable under Sections 450, 341, 323 and 376 IPC, which was read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 14 and got marked Exts.P1 to P18 and MO1 series to MO5 series to prove the case. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution.

The accused denied all those circumstances and maintained his innocence.

5. As the Sessions Court did not find it a fit case to acquit the accused under Section 232 Cr.P.C., he was asked to enter on his defence and adduce evidence in support thereof. No oral evidence has been adduced by the accused.

6. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, the Sessions Court by the impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 341 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for six years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 450 IPC and imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. It has also been ordered that if the fine amount is realized, an amount of Rs.45,000/-shall be paid to PW1 under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C. The substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Set off has been allowed from 09/02/2016 till the date of judgment. As the learned Sessions Judge found the compensation ordered to be paid on realizing the fine amount to be inadequate, the District Legal Services Authority was requested to award compensation to PW1 under the Kerala Victim Compensation Scheme, 2014(the Scheme).

7. In the appeal memorandum, it is alleged that the trial court went wrong in relying on the oral evidence which is totally insufficient to prove the offences alleged against the accused. The recovery allege