Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 753
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.SUDHA, J
Manikandan @ Mani, S/o.gopalan @ Balan - Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala - Respondent
CRL.A NO. 2 OF 2014
Decided On : 17-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : BY ADV R.RANJITH (MANJERI)
For the Respondent: BY ADV.SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
IMPORTANT POINT
Consent obtained under a promise of marriage must be scrutinized, especially when inconsistencies in the victim's testimony raise doubts about the nature of consent.
Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376 - Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(xi) and 3(2)(v) - Appeal against conviction for rape - The accused was convicted for rape based on the victim's testimony, which was found insufficient due to inconsistencies regarding consent and the promise of marriage - The trial court acquitted the accused of SC/ST Act charges. (Paras 1 , 8 , 12 )
(B) Consent and Misconception of Facts - The court emphasized that consent obtained under a promise of marriage must be scrutinized carefully, especially when the victim's testimony raises doubts about the nature of consent. (Paras 12 )
Facts of the case:
The accused allegedly raped the victim on the promise of marriage after taking her to a lodge. The victim's testimony was central to the prosecution's case, but inconsistencies regarding consent were noted.
Findings of Court:
The trial court acquitted the accused of SC/ST Act charges but convicted him under Section 376 IPC. The appellate court found the evidence insufficient to sustain the conviction.
Issues: The main issue was whether the conviction and sentence were sustainable based on the evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the victim's consent was questionable due to inconsistencies in her testimony and the circumstances surrounding the incident, leading to the conclusion that the accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Result: Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside.
JUDGMENT :
(C.S. SUDHA, J.)
In this appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., the appellant, the sole accused, in S.C.No.298 of 2008 on the file of the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Manjeri, challenges the conviction entered and sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC.
2. The prosecution case is that the accused, a Hindu Thiyya with the intention of raping PW1, knowing fully well that she is a scheduled caste belonging to the Hindu-Cheruman community, on the promise of marriage on 25/06/2006 took her to a lodge by name Ayodhya situated by the side of Vettichira- Kadampuzha public road, checked into room no.115 of the said lodge and after 08:00 p.m. forcibly undressed PW1 and raped her. Hence, the accused as per the final report is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Section 376 IPC and Sections 3(1)(xi) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the SC/ST Act) .
3. Ext.P1 FIS of PW1 the victim was recorded by PW12, ASI, Perinthalmanna police station, who registered Ext.P11 FIR. Thereafter, the FIR was transferred to the Kalpakanchery police station as the crime took place within the jurisdiction of the said station. PW13, ASI, Kalpakanchery police station registered Ext.P12 FIR. The initial investigation into the case was conducted by PW14, DYSP, Tirur. The investigation was thereafter taken over by PW15, DYSP, Tirur, 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 jurisdictional magistrate after complying with all the necessary formalities contemplated under Section 209 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Court of Session, Manjeri. The case was taken on file as S.C.No.298/2008 and thereafter made over to the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Manjeri for trial and disposal.
5. On appearance of the accused before the trial court, a charge under Section 376 IPC, Sections 3(1)(xi) and 3(2) (v) of the SC/ST Act was framed, read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty.
6. On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW16 were examined and Exts.P1 to P18 and M.O.I to M.O.IV were marked in support of 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.
7. As the trial 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 or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. Ext.D1 is the contradiction brought out in the statement of PW2, the doctor.
8. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, the trial court by the impugned judgment found no evidence to find the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(xi) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act and hence acquitted him under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. of the said offences. However, he has been found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and hence he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. has been allowed. Aggrieved, the accused has come up in appeal.
9. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the conviction entered and sentence passed against the accused/appellant by the trial court are sustainable or not.
10. Heard both sides.
11. Before going into the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant/accused, I briefly refer to the evide
