Kerala High Court
Sasikumar vs State Of Kerala on 26 September, 2013
Author: P.Bhavadasan
Bench: P.Bhavadasan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/4TH ASWINA, 1935
CRL.A.No. 2605 of 2008 ( )
---------------------------
SC.NO. 667/2006 OF SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA
CP.NO. 14/2006 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, RAMANKARI
--------------------------------------
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:-
------------------------------------------
SASIKUMAR, S/O.PADMANABHAN,
AMBADITHARA VEEDU, WARD NO.5,
PULINCUNNU PANCHAYAT,
KUNNUMMA VILLAGE, KUTTANADU.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU
SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:-
------------------------------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 26-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
sts
P.BHAVADASAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.A. No. 2605 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 26th day of September, 2013
J U D G M E N T
The accused, who faced trial for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 377 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(xi) and (xii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, was, after trial, found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 511 of 376 and 377 of IPC and he was therefore convicted and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of 25,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 511 of 376 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 377 of IPC. He was acquitted of other offences. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently and set off as per law was allowed.
2. PW1 is the victim in this case. She was, at the relevant time, studying in the 9th standard in the school in which the accused was the teacher. At the relevant time, he Crl.A. No. 2605 of 2008 -2- was the class teacher of PW1 and also he took lessons in Malayalam. On 17.08.2004, it is alleged that the accused asked PW1, the victim to come over to the staff room in the afternoon. PW1, after taking lunch and returning to school, along with PWs 2 and 3, went to the staff room. After leaving PW1 in the staff room, PWs 2 and 3 returned, though the allegation is that they were sent back by the accused. Further allegation is that PW1 was made to sit on a bench and write Vernacular alphabets. While she was doing so, the lunch recess was over and the other teachers and staff members present in the staff room had gone to their respective class rooms, leaving the accused and the victim in the staff room. The allegation is that the accused tried to rape the victim and also committed unnatural offence on her. After the incident, the allegation is that PW1 was threatened with dire consequences, if she revealed the incident to anybody and therefore she kept silent. In the evening, when she reached home, she developed nausea Crl.A. No. 2605 of 2008 -3- and she was taken to the Health Centre nearby, by PW9. After prescribing medicines, she was allowed to go home. On the next day, she did not go to school. On 19.08.2004, she was taken to the Medical College Hospital. After being examined, she returned home. On 20.08.2004, it is stated that when she again developed complications and she was questioned by PW9, she revealed the incident to PW9. She was again taken to the Medical College Hospital and admitted in the said hospital.
3. It appears that intimation had gone from the hospital to the Police Station and PW20 had gone to the hospital and recorded Ext.P1, First Information Statement furnished by PW1. On the basis of Ext.P1, he registered Ext.P17, FIR.
4. PW7 is the doctor who had examined PW1 on 16.08.2004 and PWs 8, 10 and 11 are other doctors who had examined the victim. Among them, PW8 had issued Ext.P4 certificate and PW10 had issued Ext.P5 certificate. Crl.A. No. 2605 of 2008 -4- PW21 took over investigation. He prepared the scene mahazar and recorded statement of witnesses. He had the articles seized during investigation and sent them for chemical analysis report. Subsequent investigation was conducted by PW22. He in fact, filed a report seeking to have Section 354 of IPC also included. PW23, his successor in office obtained Ext.P10 FSL report, completed investigation and laid charge before court.
5. The court before which the final report was laid, took cognizance of the offences. Finding that the case is exclusively triable by a Special Court, the case was committed to Special Court, Alappuzha under Section 209 Cr.P.C. The said court, on receipt of records and appearance of the accused, framed charges for the offences initially made mention of.
6. To the charge, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution therefore, had examined PWs 1 to 23 and had Exts. P1 to P19 marked. MOs Crl.A. No. 2605 of 2008 -5- 1 to 4 were got identified and marked. The defence had Exts.D1 to D4, the contradictory statements of the respective witnesses, marked during the examination of respective witnesses by the prosecution.
7. After the close of prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence against him and maintained that he is innocent. He, however, in his statement admitted that he had called the child to the staff room and asked her to write from the book she was carrying at the relevant time. He denies having committed any act as alleged and stated that he was innocent.
8. Finding that he could not be acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C., he was asked to enter on his defence. He chose to adduce no evidence.
9. The Court below, presumably, greatly impressed by the evidence of PWs 1 and 9 and also the other items of Crl.A. No. 2605 of 2008 -6- evidence, came to the conclusion that the offences under Sections 511 of 376 and 377 of IPC had been made out. Conviction and sentence as already mentioned followed.
10. The learned senior counsel Sri. Vijaya Bhanu, appearing for the appellant assails the finding of the court below on several grounds. According to the learned senior counsel, the court below has mechanically accepted the evidence of PW1 without subjecting it to critical analysis and without noticing the inherent improbabilities of the case put forward by PW1. The learned senior counsel conceded that one may initially be taken away by the fact that a 14 year old student has come out with such an accusation and unless there is some reason behind it, she would not say so. According to the learned senior counsel, the other items of evidence in this case would clearly show that the incident set up is false, at any rate, it is not beyond reasonable doubt. Except for the interested version of PW1, there is no other evidence regarding the incident. The evidence Crl.A. No. 2605 of 2008 -7- furnished by PW9 is on the basis of what was told to her by PW1, the victim. The learned senior counsel drew attention of this Court to the fact that at the time of giving Ext.P1, First Information Statement, the case of the victim was that after the incident was over, she was dressed up by the accused himself while at the time of giving evidence, a totally different version is given and she would say that one Indira teacher and one Sreelekshmi, the peon had come and seen her lying on the bench, sprinkled water on her face and dressed her up. The learned senior counsel also drew attention of this Court to the fact that the victim even goes to the extent of saying that at the time when Indira teacher and Sreelekshmi came inside the staff room, the accused was standing undressed.
11. Referring to the evidence of PW1, the learned senior counsel pointed out that going by her evidence, she had gone to the hospital on 17.08.2004 as a result of certain complications developed by her, which is attributed to the Crl.A. No. 2605 of 2008 -8- act committed by the accused. But the evidence on records namely the testimony of PW7 would show that the victim had gone to him for medical examination on 16.08.2004 itself while the incident is on 17.08.2004. The learned senior counsel pointed out that the evidence of PWs 7, 8 and 10, the doctors who had examined the victim would not show that anything of the sort as alleged could have happened nor do the certificate issued by them. The complaint of sore throat and the abdominal pain complained of by PW1 is not attributed to the act alleged to have been committed by the accused by any of those doctors. It is here that according to the learned senior counsel, one should notice that for reasons unknown neither Indira teacher nor Sreelekshmi, the peon who are alleged to have come to the aid of PW1, are seen examined at all. According to the learned senior counsel, Indira teacher would have been the best witness to speak about the incident. The omission or suppression whatever that be as contended by the learned senior Crl.A. No. 2605 of 2008 -9- counsel, casts serious doubt regarding the version given by PW1. It was also pointed out by the learned senior counsel that going by the evidence of PW1, the ejaculation which made semen etc. fall on the body of the victim was wiped off with her own clothes and those clothes were sent for chemical examination. But surprisingly enough, according to the learned senior counsel, the chemical analysis report does not show the presence of semen or spermatozoa. This also belies the prosecution case. Drawing attention to the evidence of PW21, the Investigating Officer, learned senior counsel pointed out that he says in examination court that when he went to question the victim, the victim was not willing to answer him and she was seen dodging him.
12. Drawing attention of this Court to the scene plan and the scene mahazar, it was contended by the learned senior counsel that a look at these documents would clearly show that an incident as alleged virtually would have been impossible to commit. It is also brought to the notice of this Crl.A. No. 2605 of 2008 -10- Court by the learned senior counsel that the evidence in the case shows that there was separate staff room for the lady teachers and male teachers and if that be so, the claim of PW1 that Indira teacher came to the staff room in which the incident took place which was for male teachers also makes the evidence of PW1 open to serious doubt.
13. The learned senior counsel pointed out that it is not for the accused to show as to why he has been implicated. The mere fact that the accused is unable to offer a reasonable explanation for the implication does not relieve the prosecution of its burden of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt and the non explanation may not by itself be a ground to mulct the liability on the accused.
14. The above vital aspects, according to the learned senior counsel have been omitted to be noticed by the lower court which is seen carried away by the testimony of PW1, who aged only 14 years at the relevant time. The learned senior counsel did not dispute the proposition that if, as a Crl.A. No. 2605 of 2008 -11- matter of fact, the evidence of the victim is found to be cogent, convincing and credit worthy and inspires confidence in the mind of court, that alone can form the basis of conviction. But the learned senior counsel would point out that the evidence of PW1 in this case does not stand the test so applied.
15. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand pointed out that it could not be said that there was any delay in lodging the First Information Statement as it was lodged within three days of the happening of the incident. The learned Public Prosecutor emphasizes that the incident being one of humiliation, shame and agony, if initially, apart from the threat meted out by the accused, PW1 was reluctant to divulge it to anybody, she could not be found fault with. It was only after she developed certain complications and she was questioned severely by her aunt, PW9 who had taken her to the Medical College Hospital that the child revealed the incident. It is difficult to believe, Crl.A. No. 2605 of 2008 -12- according to the learned Public Prosecutor, that a child aged 14 would knit a story against the accused for no obvious reasons. No evil motive or oblique intention is suggested to PW1 in that regard. Reliance placed on the statement of PW1 to the effect that before the Police, the statement was in fact given by PW9 and her uncle and she only signed the same can only be taken with some qualification. One has to remember, according to the learned Public Prosecutor, the age of the victim at the relevant time and her state of mind at the relevant time and if some aid was given by PW9 and another person, it could not be said that PW1 was not the author of Ext.P1, First Information Statement. The learned Public Prosecutor also pointed out that the evidence of PW1 gets sufficient corroboration from Ext.P1 itself and even if there are any contradiction or inconsistency between the two, that is only minor and insignificant. There is no reason, according to the learned Public Prosecutor, to disbelieve PW9 when she says that the incident was conveyed to her Crl.A. No. 2605 of 2008 -13- by PW1. Referring to the evidence of PW12, the mother of the victim, the learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that her evidence also would show that her daughter was not found in the normal mood after the incident. Referring to the evidence of PW9, it was pointed out that when PW9 had gone to the school to lodge a complaint and while she was coming out, the accused had walked to her and asked her whether PW1 had revealed anything to her. This statement made by PW9 to a great extent supports the prosecution case. At any rate, according to the learned Public Prosecutor, the lower court which had the occasion to watch the demeanour of witnesses has chosen to believe the evidence of PW1 and unless it is shown that it suffers from serious infirmities, inconsistencies or contradictions, it will not be appropriate for this Court to disbelieve the evidence of PW1. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, there are no grounds made out to interfere with the findings of the court below.
Crl.A. No. 2605 of 2008 -14-
16. True, at the first blush, it might appear that there is considerable substance in the contention raised by the learned Public Prosecutor. But, as rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the appellant, merely because the accused is unable to offer an explanation as to why he has been implicated, by itself may not be sufficient to mulct liability on him. Even though, that may be incidentally taken in aid of, to find against him.
17. As is the usual case, here also, as regards the actual incident, there is evidence of PW1 only. Well, the law as regards the appreciation of the evidence of a prosecutrix of the victim of rape is well established. It is well settled by now that if the evidence of the prosecutrix is found to be convincing, cogent and inspires confidence in the mind of court, it will be imprudent on the part of the court to look for corroboration. One has to remember that such criminal acts are done in secrecy and it is seldom one gets direct evidence in such type of offences. It is also well settled that Crl.A. No. 2605 of 2008 -15- the victim in such cases is not in the position of an accomplice but is in the status of an injured witness whose evidence is entitled to considerable weight. Unless it is shown that the evidence is inherently improbable or suffers from serious infirmities, it may not be proper for the court to casts doubt on the version given by the prosecutrix. Bearing the above principles in mind, an attempt shall now be made to see whether the evidence of PW1 inspires confidence in the mind of court which enables the court to venture a finding that the accused is guilty.
18. One should at once notice that the incident is alleged to have taken place during lunch recess in the school. To be more precise, between 1.30 and 2.30 p.m. Even as admitted by the prosecution, when PW1 along with PWs 2 and 3 went to the staff room where the accused was present. There were other teachers in the staff room. One of them examined is PW4. PW1 would say that she had gone along with two other students and according to her, Crl.A. No. 2605 of 2008 -16- those students were asked to go back by the accused. But the evidence of PW3 is otherwise. She is one of the persons who admittedly had gone with PW1. One may recollect here that the stand of PW1 is that when she reached the class room after having lunch, she was informed by her classmates that the accused had enquired about her and wanted her to go over to the staff room. But the evidence of PW3 is to the effect that after lunch, she came to the class room and asked PWs 2 and 3 to accompany her to go to the staff room. Whatever that be, the fact remains that even according to PW1, when she reached the staff room, there were other teachers present. According to the evidence of PW1, after the lunch recess was over, when there were none in the staff room and all the teachers have gone to take classes, the incident had occurred.
19. It is unnecessary to narrate in detail what has been spoken to by PW1 regarding the actual incident which finds place in the order of the lower court.
Crl.A. No. 2605 of 2008 -17-
20. One has at once to notice that the definite stand that PW1 in Ext.P1, First Information Statement furnished by her is that after the incident was over, she was dressed up by the accused himself. While at the time of giving evidence, she would say that while she was lying unconscious on the bench, one Indira teacher and Sreelekshmi, a peon of the school had come near her, sprinkled water on her face, woke her up and dressed her up. It is to be noted that PW1 would say that at that time, the accused was standing undressed.
21. The above inconsistency between Ext.P1 and the evidence of PW1 cannot be taken lightly. Especially, in the light of the fact that the prosecution has made no attempt either to examine the said Indira teacher or Sreelekshmi, the peon. No reasons are also given for the omission. In fact, either of them would have been the best persons to speak about the incident, even though they might not have been able to actually speak about the incident that occurred prior Crl.A. No. 2605 of 2008 -18- to their coming to the place of incident. But at least, they could have spoken to as to what they had seen when they entered the staff room and what they had done thereafter. Their evidence would have gone a long way to establish the complicity of the accused. In the absence of any reasonable explanation for their non examination, certainly a doubt is cast on the prosecution version.
22. The evidence of PW9 on which considerable reliance is placed by the prosecution, when viewed critically, can be seen to be of not much help to the prosecution at all. Of course, PW9 does say that she had on 17.08.2004, taken PW1 to a doctor when PW1 developed nausea. PW9 also says that when enquired, PW1 had told her that the accused had misbehaved with her. PW9 further says that she had gone to the school and complained to the Principal. That PW9 had come to the school and raised a complaint is spoken to by PW6 also. But then PW6 would say that when she asked PW9 to give the complaint in writing, she left the Crl.A. No. 2605 of 2008 -19- school. The evidence of PW1 is to the effect that on 18.08.2004 also the victim was taken to the hospital and on 19.08.2004 to the Medical College Hospital. On 19.08.2004, after she was examined, PW1 returned home. Going by the chief examination of PW9, it is seen that after they returned from Medical College Hospital, on 19th,when PW9 persistently questioned PW1, she disclosed the incident to her. But in cross examination, PW9 would say that it was on 20.08.2004 that the incident was revealed to her. Even assuming that this slight inconsistency can be over looked, the fact remains that PW9 was reluctant to give a written complaint to the Principal.
23. It is true that the First Information Statement was laid on 20.08.2004, that is, within three days after the incident. In sexual assault cases, even if there is any delay, it is normally not considered fatal to the case.
24. Coming to the medical evidence as rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the appellant, it is of no Crl.A. No. 2605 of 2008 -20- help to the prosecution. All the three doctors namely PWs 7, 8 and 10 who had examined the victim, neither in their reports nor in their testimony speak about any symptoms or signs or evidence of any sexual assault on the victim. It could well be said that probably, the victim had not suffered any external injuries. But, here one cannot omit to note the definite stand of PW1 at the time of giving First Information Statement and at the time of evidence that there was penetration, which is totally belied by the medical evidence. This fact seems to have impressed the lower court also and that precisely is the reason as to why the court below had only found Section 511 of 376 of IPC.
25. It is not possible from the scene mahazar or scene plan to locate the exact place of incident. Here, one has to refer to the evidence of PW21. He speaks about the reluctance on the part of PW1 to give further statements to him and also extreme reluctant on the part of the child to show the place of the incident. It is not possible to Crl.A. No. 2605 of 2008 -21- understand by a perusal of either Exts.P12 or P15 the exact place of incident. One has necessarily to recall the evidence of PW1 to the effect that before committing the act, the accused had closed all the doors and windows. A perusal of sight plan and scene mahazar show that there are several windows and doors in the staff room. If they were all closed, it is inconceivable that it would not have attracted the attention of some one who happened to pass through the varandha and especially, when the Principal's room was the adjacent room and there were class rooms on either sides of the room. Looking at the sight plan and scene mahazar, it is difficult to believe that such an incident could have happened at that time of the day. One must here recall that the incident is alleged to have taken place between 1.30 and 2.30 p.m.. In fact, after 2 O'clock to after the lunch recess was over.
26. PW4, who admittedly was one of the teachers present at the time when PW1 arrived at the staff room, had Crl.A. No. 2605 of 2008 -22- clearly stated that he was in the staff room till 2.30 p.m. and during the time he was there, the accused and PW1 had left the room. Probably, one could say, he was sympathetic to the accused.
27. Of course, the question remains that as to why PW1 should falsely implicate the accused. But as rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the appellant, it is not for the accused to answer, especially, when there are no other circumstance pointing out the guilt of the accused. May it could have been one of the circumstances had there been other items of evidence to point out the guilt of the accused. The non explanation by the accused is taken aid of normally in cases based on circumstantial evidence where the accused is unable to offer satisfactory explanation regarding his presence at the place of incident or his participation. In the case on hand, the case is based on direct evidence and in such cases, the absence of non explanation offered by the accused may not have much of Crl.A. No. 2605 of 2008 -23- relevance as in a case based on circumstantial evidence.
28. One has necessarily to recall the evidence of PW1 which is to the effect that she wiped her body with her clothes and the prosecution evidence is to the effect that those clothes were seized by the Police Officers and sent for chemical examination. Neither Ext.P5 proved through PW8, the doctor nor Ext.P9 proved through PW13 show the presence of semen of spermatozoa on the items sent for chemical examination. This also to a great extent casts considerable doubt regarding the version given by PW1.
29. In the light of the above facts and circumstances as disclosed from the evidence, it is difficult to say that the evidence of PW1 is of such a sterling character so as to enable the court to venture a finding of guilt against the accused. At any rate, there is reasonable doubt created regarding the incident. If that be so, the benefit should certainly go to the accused.
Crl.A. No. 2605 of 2008 -24-
In the result this appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence passed by the lower court for the offences punishable under Sections 511 of 376 and 377 of IPC are set aside and it is held that the prosecution has not been successful in establishing the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He stands acquitted of all charges levelled against him. His bail bond shall stand cancelled. He is set at liberty. If he has paid the fine amount, the same shall be refunded to him.
Sd/-
P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE ds //True copy// P.A. To Judge