Kerala High Court
Syam vs State Of Kerala on 24 February, 2022
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1943
CRL.A NO. 129 OF 2018
CRIME NO.516/2009 OF Sreekaryam Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 1231/2010 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES AND
SEXUAL VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
CP 13/2010 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
-I,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANT/2ND ACCUSED:
SYAM
S/O.KAMALASANAN, SYAM NIVAS,NEAR KATTELA AMBEDKAL
SCHOOL,CHERUVAIKKAL VILLAGE
BY ADV SRI.M.SREEKUMAR
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682031
BY ADVS.
SMT.SHEEBA THOMAS, PP
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.02.2022, ALONG WITH CRL.A.169/2018, THE COURT ON
24.02.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Appeal Nos.129 & 169/2018
-:2:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1943
CRL.A NO. 169 OF 2018
CRIME NO.516/2009 OF Sreekaryam Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 1231/2010 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT
FOR THE TRIAL OF CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE
AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
CP 13/2010 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
-I,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANT/1ST ACCUSED:
BABUMON
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O. RAJAPPAN,ANANDU BHAVAN, NEAR
THALIVILA,EDATHARA TEMPLE, MARANALLOOR,KULATHUMMAL
VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT B.S.BHAVAN,NEAR KATTALA
UPPACHI CSI CHURCH, CHERUVAIKAL VILLAGE.
BY ADVS.SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR
SMT.A.SALINI LAL
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERANKULAM.
SMT.SHEEBA THOMAS, PP
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.02.2022, ALONG WITH CRL.A.129/2018, THE COURT ON
24.02.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Appeal Nos.129 & 169/2018
-:3:-
J U D G M E N T
Dated this the 24th day of February, 2022 These appeals have been preferred by the accused in SC No.1231/2010 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court For The Trial of Cases Relating to Atrocities and Sexual Violence against Women and Children, Thiruvananthapuram (for short, 'the Court below') challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 10/1/2018.
2. The accused (two in numbers) faced trial for the offences punishable under Ss. 376(f) and 377 r/w S.34 of IPC.
3. The victim was a minor girl aged 8 years, studying in 3rd standard, at the time of the occurrence. The accused are her neighbours. The prosecution case in short is that the accused Nos.1 and 2 in furtherance of their common intention to satisfy their lust, enticed the victim and the accused No.1 took her to his house and committed rape as well as carnal intercourse against the order of nature on her many days during the month of September, 2009 and the accused No.2 took her to his house Crl.Appeal Nos.129 & 169/2018 -:4:- and had carnal intercourse against the order of nature on her many days during the month of September, 2009.
4. The crime was registered on the basis of Ext.P1 FI statement given by PW2, the mother of the victim on 23/11/2009 to PW5, the SI of Police, Sreekaryam Police Station. According to her, one month prior to the said date, the victim complained her of stomach pain and on further questioning she disclosed that the accused Nos.1 and 2 committed rape and carnal intercourse on her many times during September, 2009. PW5 conducted initial part of the investigation. PW7, the Circle Inspector of Police, Thiruvananthapuram city, took up the investigation from PW5 on 28/11/2009, questioned the witnesses, completed the investigation and filed charge sheet before the learned Magistrate. After completing the statutory formalities, the learned Magistrate committed the case to stand trial before the Court of Sessions.
5. Both the accused appeared at the Court below. After hearing both sides, the Court below framed charge against the accused u/ss. 376(f) and 377 r/w 34 of IPC. The charge was read over and explained to the accused who pleaded not guilty. Crl.Appeal Nos.129 & 169/2018 -:5:-
6. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 9 and marked Exts.P1 to P12. On the side of the defence DW1 was examined and Ext.D1 was marked.
7. Considering the evidence on record, the Court below found the accused No.1 guilty for the offence punishable u/ss. 376(1) and 377 of IPC and the accused No.2 guilty for the offence punishable u/s 354 of IPC. The accused No.1 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of `1,00,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable u/s 376(1) of IPC and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of `50,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence u/s 377 of IPC. The accused No.2 was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of `25,000/- for the offence punishable u/s 354 of IPC, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused No.1 preferred Crl.Appeal No. 169/2018 and the accused No.2 preferred Crl.Appeal No.129/2018. Since both the appeals are connected, I am disposing of them together.
Crl.Appeal Nos.129 & 169/2018 -:6:-
8. I have heard Sri.R.Sunil Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the accused No.1, Sri.M.Sreekumar, the learned counsel appearing for the accused No.2 and Smt.Sheeba Thomas, the learned Public Prosecutor.
9. The learned counsel for the appellants impeached the findings of the Court below on appreciation of evidence and resultant finding as to the guilt. The learned counsel for the accused No.1, Sri.R.Sunil Kumar, submitted that even if the prosecution case is believed in its entirety, still on the basis of the materials brought on record by the prosecution, offence u/s 376 of IPC is not made out against the accused No.1. The counsel further submitted that the conviction is based on the uncorroborated testimony of the child witness which suffers from contradictions and omissions. The counsel also submitted that there is unexplained delay of about two months in lodging the FIR, the benefit of which should go to the accused. The accused No.1 had also taken the plea of alibi. The learned counsel for the accused No.2, Sri.M.Sreekumar, submitted that there is no satisfactory legal evidence against accused No.2 to attract the offence u/s 354 of IPC. He also submitted that the accused No.2 Crl.Appeal Nos.129 & 169/2018 -:7:- was put to much prejudice due to misjoinder of charges. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor, Smt.Sheeba Thomas, supported the findings and verdict handed down by the courts below and argued that necessary ingredients of Ss.376 of IPC and 377 of IPC had been established against the accused No.1 and necessary ingredients of S.354 of IPC had been established against the accused No.2 and the prosecution has succeeded in proving the case beyond reasonable doubt.
10. The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of PWs1, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 9 to prove the incident and to fix the culpability on the accused. PW1 is the victim. PW2 is the mother of the victim who gave Ext.P1 FI statement. PW4 is the Doctor who examined the victim and gave Ext.P3 wound certificate. PW6 is the Doctor who examined the accused No.1 and issued Ext.P7 potency certificate. PW8 is the Doctor who examined the accused No.2 and issued Ext.P11 potency certificate. PW9 is the Headmistress of Sreekaryam Government High School where the victim studied. Ext.P12 certified copy of the relevant page of the school admission register showing the age of the victim was marked through her.
Crl.Appeal Nos.129 & 169/2018 -:8:-
11. PW1, the victim, deposed that in the month of September, 2009 while she was studying in 3 rd standard, at G.H.S.S., Sreekaryam, the accused No.1 took her to his house, gave sweets, disrobed her and thereafter inserted his fingers into her vagina. She further deposed that the accused No.1 then penetrated his penis into her vagina. She added that blood came out of her vagina. She also deposed that he inserted his penis into her mouth and then she vomited. According to her, the accused No.1 did the act on many days during the month of September at this house. As against the accused No.2, she deposed that on a day in the month of September, 2009, she went to the house of the accused No.2 for watching TV and then he showed obscene videos to her and asked her to do the act what she had seen in the video. She further deposed that he pressed on her vagina with hands and bit there. She also deposed that when she developed stomach pain, she disclosed these matters to her mother and she was taken to the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram where she revealed these matters to the Doctor. She further deposed that she has stated these to the police as well. PW1 also stated in her evidence that Crl.Appeal Nos.129 & 169/2018 -:9:- the accused No.1 had threatened her that she would kill her and her mother if she disclosed these matters to anybody and due to fear, she did not reveal the same to anyone immediately after the incident.
12. PW2 gave evidence that in the month of September, 2009, her daughter complained of stomach pain and on questioning her, she disclosed that both the accused had sexually assaulted her. She further deposed that thereafter she took PW1 to SAT Medical College Hospital where she was examined by the Doctor, PW4. She also stated that PW1 revealed everything to the Doctor as well. The statement given by her to the police was marked through her as Ext.P1.
13. PW4 is the Senior Lecturer in Gynecology, Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. She deposed that on 23/11/2009, at 5 p.m, she examined the victim girl and issued Ext.P3 certificate. According to her, she came with the alleged history that two neighbours namely Babu and Syam abused her sexually continuously since few months. The victim gave history of fingering the vagina and putting penis into her mouth. She also deposed that on examination no external injuries could be noted, Crl.Appeal Nos.129 & 169/2018 -:10:- but hymen showed old tear. According to her, the same could be caused as alleged by the victim.
14. I have perused the evidence of PW1 meticulously. Even though she was cross-examined at length by the learned counsel for the accused, nothing tangible could be extracted from her cross-examination to create any shadow of doubt that she is not a truthful witness. She clearly deposed the manner in which both the accused assaulted her sexually. She gave reliable, consistent and credible version of the crime and her evidence inspires confidence. In the chief examination PW1 clearly deposed that the accused No.1 penetrated his penis into her vagina (അയ ളട മത ഒഴ കന സ ധന എട മത ഒഴ കന സ ധനത ൽ കയറ ). She has also specifically deposed that accused No.2 pressed his hand on her vagina and bit on the vagina ( ശ ഞൻ മത ഒഴ കന ഭ ഗത കക വച# അമർത . ശ എട മത ഒഴ കന ഭ ഗത ക ച).
It is pertinent to note that these specific evidence given by PW1 was not touched in cross-examination by the learned counsel for the defence. Thus, her evidence on this aspect remains unchallenged.
Crl.Appeal Nos.129 & 169/2018 -:11:-
15. It is settled that the evidence of a victim of a sexual offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. It is equally settled that the statement of a child witness should be scrutinized with great care and caution. At the same time, it must be taken note of that the children by their inherent nature are honest. Corroboration of the testimony of the child witness is not a rule but a measure of caution and prudence is a well accepted principle (See Hari Om v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) 4 SCC 345). There is absolutely no ground for doubting the veracity of the child witness, PW1.
16. The learned Counsel for the accused No.1 submitted that the conviction was based on the solitary evidence of the victim and no independent witness was examined. It was argued that, as per the prosecution version, the victim was enticed by the accused and she was taken to her house many a time during September 2009, but not a single witness was cited to prove the said fact. The Apex Court in Krishan Lal v. State of Haryana (AIR 1980 SC 1252) held that to seek substantial corroboration of the victim's evidence in a rape case is to sacrifice common sense. In Rafiq v. State of U.P. (AIR 1981 SC 559), the Apex Court Crl.Appeal Nos.129 & 169/2018 -:12:- observed that "hardly a sensitized Judge who sees the conspectus of circumstances in its totality rejects the testimony of a rape victim unless there are very strong circumstances militating against its veracity". In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Asha Ram (AIR 2006 SC 381), it was held that it is well within the limits to rest a conviction based on the solitary testimony of the victim, whose evidence is more reliable than that of the injured witness. In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh [(1996) 2 SCC 384], the Apex Court took the view that in cases involving sexual molestation, even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. It was further held that the courts cannot cling to a fossil formula and insist upon corroboration even if, taken as a whole, the case spoken by the victim of sex crime strikes the judicial mind as probable. As per the evidence of PW1, the rape and sexual assault was taken place at the house of the accused Nos.1 and 2 when no body was at their home. Thus, there cannot be any independent witness. The evidence of the victim is found to be genuine, credible and reliable. It can safely be relied on to Crl.Appeal Nos.129 & 169/2018 -:13:- prove the incident and to fix culpability on the accused.
17. The evidence of PW1 gets corroboration from the evidence of PW2 and PW4. PW2's evidence would show that after a month of the incident, PW1 complained her of stomach pain and when questioned, she disclosed the sexual assault made on her by the accused one month ago, and one month thereafter, she took PW1 to PW4 and also lodged Ext.P1 FIS to the police. This evidence of PW2 gets corroboration from the evidence of PW4 and the evidence of PW5, the Sub Inspector of Police, who recorded Ext.P1 FI statement. PW4 deposed that PW1 was brought to her by PW2 on 23/11/2009, she examined her and issued Ext.P3 wound certificate. She specifically deposed that the victim came with history that two neighbours viz. Babu and Syam abused her sexually continuously since few months. She further deposed that the victim told her that the accused put fingers into her vagina and also put penis into her mouth. It has been stated in Ext.P3 as well. PW4 on examination of PW1 noticed old tear on her hymen. The learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued that the victim did not disclose to the Doctor about penetrative sex. It is true that the victim Crl.Appeal Nos.129 & 169/2018 -:14:- disclosed about only fingering and oral sex by the accused. But, the failure on the part of the victim, who was only aged 8 years, to mention about the penetrative sex committed by the accused No.1 is not a ground to disbelieve her testimony if it is otherwise convincing and reliable.
18. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that there is undue delay in reporting the matter to the police and lodging the FIR. The FIR was registered on 23/11/2009 on the basis of Ext.P1 FI statement given by PW2. True, she gave evidence that PW1 told her about the incident one month prior to the registration of the FIR. As per the version of the victim, the alleged incident was one month prior to her disclosure of the matter to PW2. According to the counsel, the prosecution failed to explain this delay. The learned counsel further submitted that there was long standing family feud between the family of the victim and the family of the accused No.1 and the delay has to be viewed in this background.
19. It is settled that the delay becomes fatal only in a case where there is absence of explanation and there is doubt as to the genesis or genuineness of the prosecution case. The delay in Crl.Appeal Nos.129 & 169/2018 -:15:- sexual offence has to be viewed differently. The delay in a case of sexual assault cannot be equated with delay in a case involving other offences since several factors weigh in the mind of the victim and members of her family. In a tradition bound society like ours, particularly in rural areas, it would be quite unsafe to throw out the prosecution case merely on the ground that there was delay in lodging the FIR. (State of Himachal Pradesh v. Prem Singh AIR 2009 SC 1010). It is true that the victim did not state about the alleged sexual assault committed by the accused to her mother immediately after the incident. PW1 deposed that the accused No.1 had threatened her that she and her mother would be killed if she disclosed about the sexual assault to anybody. According to her, she was frightened due to the threat of the accused No.1. It has come out in evidence that after the alleged incident, the victim had complaints of stomach pain and only when her mother enquired with her about the reason for stomach pain, she was compelled to disclose about the sexual assault committed by the accused No.1. Hence, there is satisfactory explanation for the delay in disclosing the incident by the victim to her mother. The delay, if any, on the part of PW2 in Crl.Appeal Nos.129 & 169/2018 -:16:- making complaint to the police is insignificant inasmuch as there was no deliberate delay on the part of the victim in making complaint to her mother. The Court below on analysis of the evidence of PW2 has come to the conclusion that the delay on the part of her in lodging the FIR is not at all fatal to the prosecution case. I don't find any reason to take a different view. That apart, there is nothing to doubt about the genesis or genuineness of the prosecution case on account of the alleged delay.
20. According to the accused No.1, there was property dispute between the family of his wife and the family of the victim and due to that enmity, he was falsely implicated. He has also taken a plea of alibi contending that from August 2009 till October 2009, he was at Ernakulam and Alappuzha in connection with the meeting of Motor Vehicle Inspectors' Association of which he was the Secretary. To substantiate the said defence plea, the wife of the accused No.1 was examined as DW1. She deposed that mother of the victim is her relative and there was some civil dispute between her family and the family of the victim and due to the said dispute, they were in inimical terms for the last ten to Crl.Appeal Nos.129 & 169/2018 -:17:- fifteen years. She deposed that several complaints were given in this regard to the police. But no such documents had been produced. In order to substantiate the plea of alibi, nobody was examined to prove that the accused No.1 was at Ernakulam and Alappuzha during the relevant period in connection with the meeting of Motor Vehicle Inspectors' Association. DW1, being the wife of accused No.1, is no doubt an interested witness. The accused No.2 has absolutely no case that there was any animosity towards him by the victim or her family members to falsely implicate him in the case along with accused No.1. That apart, it is quite improbable to believe that on account of some civil dispute between two families, a mother would make a false allegation of rape on her daughter. The Apex Court in Gurmit Singh (supra) has held that the courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self- respecting woman would come forward in a Court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as she is involved in the commission of rape on her. In Rajinder v. State of Himachal Pradesh [(2009) 16 SCC 69], the Apex Court held that in the context of Indian culture, a woman, a victim of sexual Crl.Appeal Nos.129 & 169/2018 -:18:- aggression, would rather suffer silently than to falsely implicate somebody. Any statement of rape is extremely humiliating experience for a woman and until she is a victim of sex crime, she would not blame anyone, but the real culprit. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that they were falsely implicated due to family feud must fail.
21. Lastly, the learned counsel for the accused No.2 vehemently argued that great prejudice has been caused to the accused No.2 on account of the misjoinder of charges. The charge was u/ss. 376 and 377 r/w 34 of IPC. The Court below found that the common intention was not proved. According to the learned counsel for the accused No.2, the allegation against both the accused is distinct and different and, thus, there is misjoinder of charge. The learned counsel submitted that neither S.376 nor S.377 was proved against accused No.2 and if he had been tried separately, the finding u/s 354 also would have been in his favour.
22. S.464 of Cr.P.C deals with omission to frame, or absence of, or error in, charge. It provides that no finding sentence or order by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be Crl.Appeal Nos.129 & 169/2018 -:19:- deemed invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed or on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of charges, unless, in the opinion of the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. The charge framed by the Court below contained specific allegations against both the accused separately and evidence was also let in on the basis of materials relied on by them at the Court. However, the Court below on appreciation of evidence found that prosecution failed to prove common intention. No complaint was made by the accused either at the time of framing charge or during trial regarding misjoinder of charge. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the view that no failure of justice has been occasioned due to the misjoinder of charges.
23. As stated already, PW1 clearly testified that the accused No.1 disrobed her and inserted his penis into her vagina. In fact, there was no cross-examination on that point. The evidence of PW6 Doctor coupled with Ext.P7 potency certificate would show that accused No.1 was capable to perform sexual act. On examination of the victim, PW4 noted that her hymen showed Crl.Appeal Nos.129 & 169/2018 -:20:- old tear. She opined that this injury could be caused due to the alleged history of sexual assault. The evidence of PWs1, 2 & 9 and Ext.P12, the certified copy of the relevant page of school admission register, would prove that the victim was aged only 8 years at the time of the alleged offence. According to S.375 of IPC (prior to amendment in 2013), the offence of rape is the commission of a penetrative sexual intercourse upon a woman by a man under circumstances falling under any of the six descriptions specified therein. Clause (vi) of S.376 provides that when the victim was under the age of sixteen, sexual intercourse with her is rape whether it was with or without her consent. In other words, the consent has no application if the victim is under the age of 16 years. The Apex Court by referring to offence of 'rape' in Sakshi v. Union of India and Others (AIR 2004 SC 3566) held that 'sexual intercourse' is heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis. Needless to say, even the slightest penile vaginal entry will amount to sexual intercourse. The Apex Court in various decisions have made it clear that the 'penile accessing' would be sufficient to constitute 'penetration ' in the sexual intercourse which is necessary for the Crl.Appeal Nos.129 & 169/2018 -:21:- offence of 'rape', which occurs, even in the absence of actual entry of the male organ through vagina or rupture of hymen [Ranjith v. State of Kerala 2022 (1) KLT 19]. The evidence of PW1 would clearly show that the accused No.1 had inserted his penis into her vagina. Hence offence u/s 376 of IPC is clearly attracted. As in the case of rape, in an unnatural offence also, even the slightest degree of penetration is enough. PW1 also deposed that the accused No.1 had inserted his penis into her mouth on many days. Thus, the offence u/s 377 of IPC also is clearly attracted. As stated already, PW1 clearly deposed that on a day in the month of September, 2009, the accused No.2 had pressed on her vagina and bit there. The said evidence is sufficient to attract S.354 of IPC. Hence, I am of the view that the Court below was absolutely justified in convicting the accused No.1 u/ss. 376 and 377 of IPC and the accused No.2 u/s 354 of IPC.
24. What remains is the sentence. The Court below sentenced the accused No.1 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of `1,00,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable Crl.Appeal Nos.129 & 169/2018 -:22:- u/s 376(1) of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of `50,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable u/s 377 of IPC and sentenced the accused No.2 to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of `25,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six moths for the offence u/s 354 of IPC. Both counsel submitted that the sentence is excessive.
25. In State of M.P. v. Babulal [(2008) 1 SCC 234], the Apex Court held that once a person is convicted for the offence of rape, he should be treated with heavy hands and an undeserved indulgence or liberal attitude in not awarding adequate sentence would encourage potential criminals. In Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal [(1994) 2 SCC 220], the Apex Court held that the Court must not only keep in view the rights of the criminal, but also the rights of the victim of crime and the society at large while considering imposition of appropriate punishment. In the instant case, an 8 year old girl was brutally raped, ravished and sexually assaulted by the accused. I find no mitigating circumstances to interfere with the punishment imposed by the Crl.Appeal Nos.129 & 169/2018 -:23:- Court below on the accused No.1. In so far as accused No.2 is concerned, the maximum punishment prescribed as per the law prevailing at the time of commission of the offence for the offence punishable u/s 354 of IPC was two years. Hence, the substantive sentence imposed on the accused No.2 has to be reduced to two years.
In the result,
(i) Crl.Appeal No.169/2018 stands dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence of the Court below.
(ii) Crl.Appeal No.129/2018 stands allowed in part. The conviction passed by the Court below is confirmed. The substantive sentence is reduced to simple imprisonment for two years with no change in fine and default sentence.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE Rp