Back
2024 Supreme(Ker) 1680
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. SUDHA, J.
Jijimon & Jiji S/o Thomas - Appellant
Versus
The State of Kerala – Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 918 of 2016
Decided On : 30-08-2024
For the Appellants : S. Sreekumar, Justine Jacob, P. Martin Jose, P. Prijithm Thomas P. Kuruvilla
For the Respondent: Sheeba Thomas
The court upheld the conviction of a teacher for outraging a child's modesty, emphasizing the importance of a child's testimony and the admissibility of prior statements despite jurisdictional challenges.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 354 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374 - Conviction for outraging modesty of child - Prosecution established the accused, a teacher, had sexually assaulted a nine-year-old student, leading to conviction - Delayed reporting due to inaction by school authorities was explained - The children's court's admission of prior testimony was deemed valid. (Paras 2, 9, 10, 15, 24)
(B) Jurisdiction - Courts and their powers - The magistrate court’s trial and recordings, although questioned for jurisdiction, were upheld as it lacked inherent lack of jurisdiction, and admission of prior testimony was valid under Section 33 of the Evidence Act. (Paras 10, 12, 15)
(C) Evidentiary standards - The court emphasized that testimony of a child and her mother was credible and sufficiently supported by corroborating evidence, overcoming the accused's defense arguments regarding the credibility of witnesses’ testimonies. (Paras 23, 24)
Findings of Court:
The trial court found the accused guilty and upheld the conviction, reinforcing the validity of evidence despite defense challenges.
Issues: Whether the trial court's conviction was sustainable despite allegations of improper jurisdiction and witness credibility.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the lower court's admission of prior child testimony and the admissibility of witness statements under Section 33 outweighed the objection regarding jurisdiction, reaffirming the importance of protecting child victims in such cases.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the case background and prosecution's allegation. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. description of the trial process and witness examinations. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. trial court's verdict and its consequences. (Para 6) |
| 4. arguments regarding trial court's jurisdiction and admissibility of evidence. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. analysis of jurisdiction and evidence legality. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. application of section 33 of the evidence act. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 7. debate on the relevance and admissibility of witness statements. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 8. testimonies of witnesses and the implications for the accused. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 9. final assessment of witness testimonies and defense arguments. (Para 22 , 23) |
| 10. conclusion of the court upon reviewing the case. (Para 24) |
JUDGMENT :
C.S. SUDHA, J.
1. In this appeal filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C., the appellant who is the accused in S.C.No.27/2012 on the file of the Court of Session, Kottayam, challenges the conviction entered and sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC.
2. The prosecution case is as follows:-
CW2 was a nine year old girl studying in the 4th standard of St. Antony's LP School, Vellikkulam during the academic year 2007-2008. The accused was her class teacher. On 25/02/2008 at 03:00 p.m. inside the 4th standard class room and in the lean-to of the main school building, the accused outraged the modesty of CW2 by squeezing her breast, stomach and below the navel. Though a complaint was given to the Headmaster and Manager of the school, they failed to take any action. Hence PW2, the mother of CW2 gave Ext.P4 FIS dated 26/05/2008 to the police based on which PW6, the then S.I., Erattupetta registered crime no.203/2008, Erattupetta police station, that is, Ext.P4(a) FIR alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. PW6 after completing the investigation submitted the charge sheet/final report before the jurisdictional magistrate.
3. The jurisdictional magistrate after taking cognizance and on appearance of the accused, and after completing the necessary formalities commenced the trial of case. CW1, the mother; CW2, the victim and CW3, the father were examined as PWs 1 to 3 respectively. By then the Children's Court as contemplated under Section 25 of the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 (the Act) was notified. Hence the learned magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court, which court made over the case to the Children's Court for trial and disposal. A charge under Section 3 54 IPC was framed, read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty.
4. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs1 to 6 were examined and Exs.P1 to P9 were got 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 those circumstances and maintained his innocence.
5. As the Children's 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. DWs1 to 3 were examined on behalf of the accused. No documentary evidence was adduced by the accused.
6. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, the trial court by the impugned judgment found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC and hence convicted and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for two years and to a fine of ₹10,000/- and in default, to rigorous imprisonment for six months. Aggrieved, the accused has come up in appeal.
7. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the conviction entered and sentenced passed against the accused by the trial court are sustainable or not.
8. Heard both sides.
9. As stated earlier, the jurisdictional magistrate had commenced the trial of the cas
