Back
2012 Supreme(Online)(KER) 7653
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.S.GOPINATHAN, J
PARASU @ PARAMESWARAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION 495/2002
The court reinforced that corroborative testimonies can validate a victim's account in cases of alleged trespass and outrage of modesty under the IPC.
Headnote:
Trespass - Criminal Offences - IPC Section List - This case addresses the interpretation of Sections 448 and 354 of the IPC concerning unlawful entry and the outrage of modesty. The court upheld the lower court's conviction, finding no merit in the defense's claims, while modifying the sentence.
Fact of the Case:
The revision petitioner was found guilty of trespass and outraging the modesty of a married woman, entering her home while her family was absent. The complaint led to an investigation and trial, where the petitioner denied the allegations.
Finding of the Court:
The court reviewed the evidence, particularly the testimonies of witnesses who confirmed that the petitioner was found inside the victim's house. The credibility of the victim's account was upheld, leading to the affirmation of her claims without established motives for false implication.
Issues: Whether the revision petitioner's actions constituted trespass and whether there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for outrage of modesty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the evidence presented sufficiently corroborated the victim's testimony, and the lack of a credible defense constituted grounds for upholding the conviction.
Final Decision: The revision petition is allowed in part; the conviction is upheld, but the sentence is reduced.
O R D E R
In C.C.No.915/1997, the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Wadakkanchery found the revision petitioner guilty for offences under Section 448 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ). Accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and six months respectively. A fine of Rs.1,000/- was also imposed under Section 354 .
2. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner preferred Crl.A.No.217/1999 before the Sessions Judge, Trissur. The Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc- I) to whom the appeal was made over, while confirming the conviction and sentence, dismissed the appeal. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal, this revision petition is preferred.
3. The prosecution case is that at 2 p.m on 27.9.1997, while PW2, a married lady having two children, engaged in her : 2:
household activities at the kitchen of the house bearing Door No.1/376 at Thiruvillamala panchayath, the revision petitioner committed house trespass by entering into the kitchen and outraged the modesty of PW2.
4. The incident being on a day where there was bus strike, PW2 complained in writing addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Thrissur. It was forwarded to the local station, on the basis of which, a case was registered as Crime No.110/1997 by the Sub Inspector of Police, Pazhayannur for the above said offences for which Ext.P3 First Information Report was prepared. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was submitted before the trial court.
5. Responding to the process issued, the revision petitioner entered appearance and pleaded not guilty. Therefore, he was sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 6 were examined. Exts.P1 to P3 were marked. After closing the evidence for the prosecution, the revision petitioner was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied the incriminating evidence and advanced : 3:
a plea that he was falsely implicated at the instance of the husband of the defacto complaint. However, no defence evidence was let in. The learned Magistrate, on appraisal of the evidence, found the revision petitioner guilty, convicted and sentenced as stated above.
6. I have heard Smt. N.C. Shalini, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Sri. Noushad Thottathil, the learned Government Pleader. The learned counsel for the petitioner took me through the relevant evidence.
7. PW2, the defacto complainant, had given evidence to the effect that while she was engaged in her kitchen at 2 p.m on 27.9.1997, the revision petitioner trespassed into the kitchen and she was caught hold of with an intend to outrage her modesty. Though PW2 was subjected to searching cross examination, nothing was disclosed to disbelieve her. PWs 2 and 3 were cited by the prosecution as witnesses to the occurrence. Their evidence would show that they had not actually witnessed the outraging of the modesty of PW2 by the revision petitioner. But they had seen the revision petitioner inside the house of PW2. Their evidence on that aspect was : 4:
relied upon by the courts below. I find little reason to disbelieve them. Their evidence also corroborates with the evidence of PW2 to some extent. The revision petitioner has no good explanation for he having entered the house of PW2, that too, when the husband of PW2 and other members of the house were out of station. There is nothing on record to suggest that the revision petitioner was falsely implicated or that either PW2 or her husband had any axe to grind against the revision petitioner for implicating him with the offences alleged. In the above circumstance, on a critical scrutiny of the materials on record, I do not found any error, illegality or impropriety committed by the courts below in believing the evidence of PWs 2 to 4 and arriving at a conclusion of guilty. The conviction under challenge is based upon cogent eviden
