The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in

the instant Crime No.543 of 2019 of Elavumthitta Police Station,

Pathanamthitta, which has been registered for the offences

punishable under Secs. 376 and 384 of IPC and Sec.66(E) of

Information Technology Act, 2000. The crime has been registered

on basis of the F.I Statement given by the lady defacto complainant

on 18-09-2019 at about 5.00 p.m, in respect of the alleged incidents,

which had happened for the period from 01-03-2016 to 16-08-2019.

2.

The brief of the prosecution case as disclosed in the

abovesaid F.I statement is that, the lady defacto complainant aged 43

years, is a married woman and having children and that she is

working in Government service as a Premetric Hostel Warden under

the social welfare department and that the petitioner/accused now

aged 36 years, had became acquainted with the lady as his niece is

staying in one of the metric hostels and that the petitioner had

3

introduced himself to the lady defacto complainant as a superior

officer in the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe development

department of the State Government and they became intimate and

as requested by him, she had voluntarily sent her nude pictures to

him and he later threatened her that he would use her photographs

unless she accedes his demands of sexual favours and that on

01-03-2016, she had gone along with him to various places like

Kanyakumari, Nagarkovil, Thambanoor etc., where they stayed in

lodges and had sexual intercourse and thereafter they had gone to

various other places, and in January, 2017 had stayed in a lodge near

Trivandrum, where they had sexual intercourse. Further that the

petitioner had forwarded some of her intimate video pictures to her

friends and out of threat she had again gone with him to Nagarkovil

on 16-08-2019 and had stayed in a hotel called 'Ganga Palace' there

also they had sexual intercourse. That later she came to realise that

the petitioner is actually working in Assam rifles and that further

that later he had also obtained about Rs.1 Lakh from her and has not

given it back. Later her son and other family members have come to

know these incidents and thereafter she reported the matter to the

4

Police.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that

the abovesaid allegations are false and fabricated. Further that a

reading of the FIS itself would make it clear that the allegation that

the lady was under the impression that the petitioner was her

superior officer in the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe

development department etc., is absolutely false, for the simple

reason that admittedly the lady is working in the Government Service

in Premetric Hostel and any cursory enquiry by her would easily

reveal that the petitioner is not in any manner associated with the

said Government department and further that if a close and

intelligent reading of the FIS would make it clear that even if it is

assumed that the incidents narrated therein are broadly true then, it

could have happened only on the basis of consensual sexual

relationship between the parties and not otherwise and therefore

none of the vital ingredients of the offence of rape as per Sec.376 of

IPC are not made out. Further it is pointed out that the allegation

that the petitioner had threatened her that he would disclose her

intimate pictures etc., are all made only because even according to

5

her she has given the complaint only after family members have

come to know the incidents and that now she want to justify her

stand before the family members by alleging that the petitioner has

forcefully raped her etc,. Further that the petitioner is working as a

Hawildar in the Indian Army and he is not in any manner

associated with any Government departments.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also place

reliance on various decisions in the Apex Court and various High

Courts including this Court,