Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 1719
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN
Ummar S/o Kunheethu - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala - Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 541 of 2014
Decided On : 11-07-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : K.A. Salil Narayanan
For the Respondent: Renjith George
IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the conviction for attempted rape based on credible victim testimony, despite claims of animosity and omissions in prior statements.
Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 341, 506(ii), and 511 read with 376 - Conviction for wrongful restraint and attempt to commit rape - The trial court found the accused guilty based on the victim's testimony despite claims of animosity and omissions in her prior statements. The court held that the evidence established intent and actions amounting to an attempt to commit rape. (Paras 4 , 19 )
(B) Evidence - The court emphasized the reliability of the victim's testimony, dismissing claims of previous animosity and false implications as unfounded. The court confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence. (Paras 18 , 20 )
Facts of the case:
The accused was charged with wrongfully restraining and attempting to sexually assault a minor, with the conviction based on the victim's evidence and corroborating testimonies from other witnesses.
Findings of Court:
The prosecution successfully established the commission of the offenses under the IPC, leading to a modified sentence of four years rigorous imprisonment and fines.
Issues: The court addressed whether the trial court erred in its findings regarding the accused's guilt and the appropriateness of the sentence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed the trial court's reliance on the victim's testimony as credible and sufficient to uphold the conviction, despite the defense's arguments regarding omissions and animosity.
Result: The conviction is confirmed with a modified sentence.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction based on victim's testimony. (Para 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding animosity and omissions. (Para 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 3. evaluation of evidence and credibility. (Para 7 , 9 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. affirmation of conviction and modification of sentence. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 5. conclusion and order from the court. (Para 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT :
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
1. The conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant, who is the sole accused in SC No. 154 of 2010 on the files of the Sessions Court, Kalpetta, are under challenge in this appeal at the instance of the accused. The state of Kerala is the respondent.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the judgment as well as the trial court records.
3. The prosecution case is that, at about 11.00 am on 16.03.2010, the accused wrongfully restrained PW5, the minor daughter of PW1, by tying her to a coffee plant at Manthamkolly in Sulthan Bathery. Further, the accused criminally intimidated the victim with fear of death and also sexually molested her. Accordingly, investigation was initiated, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 506(ii) and 511 read with 376 of the IPC, by the accused. On completion of the investigation, final report was filed and the learned Sessions Court framed charge for the said offences and proceeded with the trial.
4. During trial, PWs 1 to 8 were examined, Exts. P1 to P9, as well as MOs 1 and 2, were marked on the side of the prosecution. After questioning the accused under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an opportunity was given to the accused to adduce defence evidence. But no defence evidence was adduced. On evaluating the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused was guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 341 , 506(ii) and 511 read with 376 of the IPC. Accordingly, he was sentenced as follows.
“The accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000 in default, rigorous imprisonment for three months for offence punishable under Section 511 of 376 (2) (f) of IPC. He is further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for offence under Section 341 IPC. He is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000 in default rigorous imprisonment for one month for offence under Section 506(ii) IPC. Half of the fine amount, if realized, shall be paid over to the victim child towards compensation under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C. The substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The accused is entitled to eligible set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.”
5. While assailing the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused raised three specific points. The first point argued is that there existed previous animosity between PW1 and the accused, as the accused had provided a pathway to his neighbours, while denying the same to the family of PW1. He further argued that, based on the evidence of PW5, the victim of the alleged crime — whose sole evidence was relied upon by the trial court to nd that the accused was guilty for the offence under Section 511 read with Section 376 of the IPC — the crucial incriminating overt acts were stated by PW5 for the first time before the court and the said overt acts not stated when her statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded by the police. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused submitted that the overt acts which led to the finding that the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 511 r/w 376 of the IPC are based on material omissions. It is also stated by PW8, the Investigating O cer, that these material overt acts were not disclosed when the previous statement of PW5 was recorded under Section 161 CrPC. He also pointed out that PW1 has been in the habit of lodging complaints of sexual molestation
