Kerala High Court
Nasik P.P vs State Of Kerala on 7 October, 2013
Author: P.Bhavadasan
Bench: P.Bhavadasan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN
FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935
Bail Appl..No. 6310 of 2013 ()
-------------------------------
CRIME NO. 1206/2013 OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT
-----------------------
PETITIONER/ACCUSED :
------------------------------------
NASIK P.P., AGED 27 YEARS
S/O.YOUSUF, AYISHAS, THAZHECHOVVA
THILANOOR P.O., SANTHARAM ROAD, KANNUR.
BY SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER
BY ADVS.SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH
SMT.DENNIS VARGHESE
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :
-----------------------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
*ADDL. R2 IMPLEADED
--------------------------------
*2. RACHANA CHANDRAN
D/O. CHANDRAN, KULATHUR VILLAGE
CHERPU P.O., THRISSUR - 680 561.
*ADDL. R2 IS IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 7/10/2013 IN CRL.M.A.
NO. 7696/13 IN BA NO. 6310/2013.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SHIBU JOSEPH
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-12-2013,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn
P.BHAVADASAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A. No. 6310 of 2013
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 06th day of December, 2013
O R D E R
The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No. 1206 of 2013 of Kannur Town Police Station who is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 376 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that between 23.08.2012 and 19.05.2013, he had forcibly sexually assaulted the victim who belonged to a Scheduled Caste promising to marry her and making her believe that he would marry her. Later on, the petitioner retracted from his promise and that ultimately led the filing of the complaint.
3. The petitioner would say that the allegations are totally false and without any basis whatsoever. He is totally innocent. He relies on Annexure A1 letter which is alleged to B.A. No.6310/2013 -2- have written by the defacto complainant to the Superintendent of Police, Kannur wherein, she says that they were in deep love with each other and whatever they have done is with mutual consent and that she has no complaint against anybody. The petitioner would say that, it would clearly show that he has not committed any act as allege.
4. On an earlier occasion, when this matter was taken up, this Court directed the learned Public Prosecutor to verify the veracity of Annexure A1 letter. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that a subsequent statement from the victim has been taken which would show that she was tricked to write Annexure A1 and she has given another statement in which she has explained the circumstances under which Annexure A1 happened to be written. In the light of the subsequent statement, it is contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that it cannot be said that the offence is not made out.
B.A. No.6310/2013 -3-
5. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and having perused the records, it cannot be said that the petitioner is as innocent as he pretends to be. True, there is Annexure A1 which would show that the victim had written a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Kannur stating that the defacto complainant and the accused were in deep love and whatever they did is with mutual consent. But, subsequently, when the Investigating Officer approached for verifying the veracity of the said letter, she had explained the circumstances under which she happened to write the letter and she stands by the current statement.
6. Whether the initial physical contact was by force or by consent is a matter to be determined at a later stage. It would appear that the victim was given the impression that the petitioner would marry her from which he later retracted. Whether it amounts to misconception of facts is a matter to be determined at the time of evidence. B.A. No.6310/2013 -4-
Apart from the above facts, there is also an allegation of commission of offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Whatever that be, considering the totality of the circumstances, it is felt that this is not a fit case where extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court needs to be exercised in favour of the petitioner.
The petition is accordingly dismissed.
P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE ds