The court upheld the conviction under Section 377 IPC, emphasizing the gravity of the offence and dismissing the revision petition as devoid of merits.

ORDER

The concurrent verdicts of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Mananthavady, and the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc), Kalpetta, convicting the petitioner for the commission of offence under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , are under challenge in this revision petition. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two years by the Trial Court. In the appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, confirmed the conviction, but reduced the Simple Imprisonment to six months. Aggrieved by the above verdicts of the courts below, the petitioner is here before this Court with this revision petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

3. The prosecution case pertains to the continuous act of carnal intercourse against the order of nature perpetrated upon a boy studying in fifth standard from April-2002 to 17.10.2003 at the instance of the petitioner herein. Though initially, three other persons were also charged with the commission of the aforesaid offence, the Trial Court acquitted all others except the petitioner herein. The learned Magistrate had relied on the evidence of the victim, who was examined as PW3, to arrive at the conclusion that the petitioner committed the offence alleged against him. The evidence tendered in the above regard was also accepted by the Appellate Court to concur with the findings of the Trial Court. The challenges raised by the petitioner regarding the delay in lodging the complaint, and the prolonged period of commission of offence, are rightly dealt with by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, and were rejected. There is absolutely no reason to interfere with the above concurrent findings of the courts below in exercise of the revisional powers of this Court. As regards the sentence awarded, it is seen that the Appellate Court has shown maximum leniency and reduced the tenure of Simple Imprisonment to six months.

4. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence alleged in this case, it is not possible to further reduce the aforesaid punishment awarded by the Appellate Court. Accordingly, I find that this revision petition is devoid of merits.

In the result, the revision petition stands dismissed.

sd/