Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ALEXANDER THOMAS, SOPHY THOMAS, JJ
MURALI , S/O GOPI, C.NO.2242 – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.A 1305 2018
Criminal Law - Rape and Trespass - IPC Sections 376(2)(l), 450 - The court examined the definitions and essentials of the offenses, highlighting the importance of credible witness testimony and scientific evidence in securing convictions. It underscored the necessity for the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, reaffirming the presumption of innocence.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant broke into a home and raped a 20-year-old mentally challenged woman. The incident occurred when the victim's mother was away, and the accused was seen entering the house during this time by the victim's grandmother. Subsequent medical examinations revealed injuries consistent with sexual assault.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence and witness testimony to establish the accused’s presence in the house during the crime. Medical evidence suggested the victim had suffered injuries consistent with rape, and the absence of alternative explanations was significant.
Issues: Whether the accused trespassed into the victim's home and committed rape. Whether the prosecution proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence could validate a conviction if it ruled out all reasonable doubt. Medical findings, along with credible witnesses, facilitated the conclusion that rape occurred despite the absence of direct evidence.
Final Decision: The conviction was upheld but the sentence was modified to 14 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine.
J U D G M E N T
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
The appellant is the sole accused in Sessions Case, S.C. No. 1358 of 2014 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge for the trial of cases relating to atrocities and sexual violence against women and children, Thiruvananthapuram (arising out of Crime No. 130/2014 of Kazhakuttom Police Station), for committing offences punishable under Secs. 450 and 376 IPC .
2. By judgment dated 20.11.2017, the Additional Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram has convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life and imposed a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, default of which would entail him to suffer rigorous imprisonment upto 2 years for the offence under Sec. 376(2)(l). For the offence under Sec. 450 IPC , he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default of which he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.
3. The brief facts leading to the case are as follows:
On 27.01.2014 at 11:30 AM, the accused committed house trespass into the house of P.W-1 at Thattathumala Desom, Pazhayakunnummel Village and committed rape on her daughter, who is a 20-year-old mentally and physically challenged girl.
4. The indictment against the accused is that, at about 11.30 A.M. on 27.01.2014, the accused committed house trespass and committed rape on the victim, who is mentally retarded. For the occurrence of the above crime, Ext.P-1 FIS was lodged by PW-1, who is the mother of the victim, before PW-14 CPO attached to Kilimanoor Police Station on 28.01.2014 at 5:25 PM. PW-15, Sub-Inspector of Police, Kilimanoor has registered Ext.P-10 FIR on the same day. 5. The investigation was conducted by PW-17 Circle Inspector of Police, Kilimanoor Police Station. PW-17 had reached the place of occurence and prepared Ext.P-2 scene mahazar and had taken MO-1 dress, worn by the victim at the time of the incident, into custody. He recorded the statements of the witnesses and arrested the accused on 31.01.2014. Ext. P-12 is the arrest memo of the accused. Ext. P-3 mahazar consists of the shirt and dhoti worn by the accused at the time of commission of the offence, which is marked as MO2 and MO3. MOs. 1-3 were send for examination to the FSL through court, vide Ext. P-14 forwarding note, whereby Ext. P-17 FSL Report was subsequently submitted. Ext. P-6 is the Potency Certificate of the accused and Ext. P-15 is the address report of the accused.
6. On committal, on the basis of the materials on record, the Asst. Sessions Court framed charge against the appellant under Secs. 376 and 450 of the IPC , to which he pleaded not guilty.
7. During the trial, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 17 and has marked Exts. P-1 to P-17 documents and MO1 to MO3 (material objects) on the prosecution side. On the basis of the evidence on record, the accused was questioned by the Asst. Sessions Court under Sec. 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C.
8. The Asst. Sessions Court did not deem fit and proper for recording acquittal under Sec. 232 of the Cr.P.C. and the accused was called upon to enter on his defence evidence, which he might have in support thereof. The accused had not adduced any defence evidence.
9. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge for the trial of cases relating to atrocities and sexual violence against women and children, Thiruvananthapuram.
10. The Additional Sessions Court, on conclusion of the trial and after appreciation of the evidence on record, has convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Secs. 450 and 376(2)(l) of the IPC .
11. Heard Smt. Anuroopa Jayadevan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (sole accused), Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State.
12. Both sides have made extensive submissions and we have considered the same.
13. The main submissions made by Smt.Anuroopa Jayadevan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (sole ac
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
