Kerala High Court
Pramod @ Sreekantan vs State Of Kerala on 5 November, 2021
Author: M.R.Anitha
Bench: M.R.Anitha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA
FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1943
CRL.MC NO. 7158 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 641/2013 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES AND SEXUAL
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ARISING FROM
CRIME NO.334/2006 OF VALIYATHURA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PETITIONERS:
PRAMOD @ SREEKANTAN,
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O.VISWAPPAN, ILIPARA HOUSE, KARIKKAKAM BEACH P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN
SMT.B.ANUSREE
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 31.
2 VICTIM
XXXX
BY ADV A.K.MANU
OTHER PRESENT:
PP .SRI. RENJIT GEORGE,SR GP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 7158 OF 2019 2
ORDER
This Crl.M.C has been filed seeking to quash Annexure 1 final report and all proceedings in SC.No.641/2013 of Additional Sessions Court for the trial of Cases Relating to Atrocities and Sexual Violence against Women and Children, Thiruvananthapuram arising from Crime No.334/2006 of Valiyathura Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. The prosecution case is that on a day two months prior to 11.12.2006 the 2nd accused induced the victim, a minor girl aged 17 years to go from her house at Kadakampally Village and after conducting a mock marriage on 1.9.2006 he had taken her to Kanyakumari and committed rape on her at room No.A-13 of New Cap Hotel. It is also alleged that he had committed rape on her on 29.9.2006 at room No.107 and on 8.10.2006 at room No.102 of that hotel. Thereafter, on 10.12.2006 the petitioner/1st accused had taken the victim to Kanyakumari and committed rape on her at room No.201 of Rehoboth lodge, Kanyakumari. Thereafter, when the 1st accused/petitioner reached at CRL.MC NO. 7158 OF 2019 3 Thampanoor junction, the 2nd accused caused hurt on the victim by beating on her body. Thus the accused alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 366(A), 376 and 323 read with Section 34 of IPC.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner a full fledged trial was conducted with respect to the 1 st accused in SC No.1456/2017 before Additional Sessions Court for the trial of Cases Relating to Atrocities and Sexual Violence against Women and Children, Thiruvananthapuram and as per the judgment dated 19.12.2017, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the 2 nd accused under Section 232 of Cr.P.C.
4. Notice was issued to the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant appeared through Adv.Renju Mohan G. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the counsel for the defacto complainant.
5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner even though, the present petitioner is arrayed as the 1st accused, the CRL.MC NO. 7158 OF 2019 4 entire allegation as per the prosecution case is that the 2 nd accused induced the victim to go from her house and he has conducted a mock marriage and thereafter committed rape on her on 1.9.2006 at room No.A-13 of New Cap Hotel. As per the prosecution case it is subsequent to that it is alleged that this accused though arrayed as the 1st accused, on 10.12.2006 had taken the victim to Kanyakumari and committed rape on her in a lodge.
6. The learned counsel contended that even in the trial against the 2nd accused the defacto complainant totally withdrawn the statement given to the police and her mother also did not support the prosecution case. The mother of the victim girl stated that she don't know whether PW1 had given any statement to the police. Further that she had not given any statement to the Police.
7. On an evaluation of the evidence adduced in that case taking into account the fact that the victim is totally retracted from the version given to the police, and since it was a case if no evidence the court was forced to acquit the 2nd accused under CRL.MC NO. 7158 OF 2019 5 Section 232 of Cr.P.C.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant contended that no such incident as alleged has occurred and she has already undergone an ordeal of a trial and she may not be driven to the 2nd trial with respect to the present accused. She also sworn in an affidavit attested by a notary which is produced as Annexure III from the side of the petitioner. In the Anneuxre III affidavit she has categorically stated that now she is married and residing with her husband. She is leading a happy and peaceful married life. The continuance of the proceedings in the case will affect the peace and harmony of her marital relationship. She didn't have any grievance against the petitioner.
9. The prosecution case has already been found to be not proved and even if the trial is allowed to be continued against the petitioner nothing fruitful is going to happen as per the affidavit sworn in by the defacto complainant the victim. Since she is married presently to another man and living peacefully, the continuance of this proceeding will upset the peace and harmony CRL.MC NO. 7158 OF 2019 6 of her life also.
In the result, I find it just and proper to quash further proceedings against the petitioner/1st accused in crime 334/2006 of Valiyathura Polcie Station which is now pending as SC.No.641/2013 of Additional Sessions Court for the trial of Cases Relating to Atrocities and Sexual Violence against Women and Children, Thiruvananthapuram Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed.
Sd/-
M.R.ANITHA JUDGE ska CRL.MC NO. 7158 OF 2019 7 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7158/2019 PETITIONER ANNEXURE ANNEXURE I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 30/04/2010 ALONG WITH FIR.
ANNEXURE II CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19/12/2017 IN SC 1456/2017.
ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16/08/2019.