Kerala High Court
Vinod @ Binu vs The State Of Kerala on 13 February, 2013
Author: P.Bhavadasan
Bench: P.Bhavadasan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/24TH MAGHA 1934
CRL.A.No. 219 of 2005 (F)
------------------------------------
[S.C.NO.505/2003 OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT
(ADHOC) FAST TRACK COURT-II, PATHANAMTHITTA]
.............
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
----------------------------------
VINOD @ BINU, S/O. RAJAN,
KAIPPALLIL MALAYIL, S.N.D.P. JUNCTION, KOKKATHODU MURI,
ARUVAPULAM VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL,
SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN,
SRI.P.S.VIJAYAN.
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
------------------------------------------------------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
*ADDL. R.2. IMPLEADED:
2. SHEEBA JOSEPH, D/O. JOSEPH,
THEKKINETHU HOUSE,
KOKKATHODU.P.O., ARUVAPULAM,
KOZHENCHERRY,
PATHANAMTHITTA.
*ADDL. R.2. IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 13/02/2013 IN
CRL.M.A. NO.1013/2013.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. R. REMA,
ADDL.R2 BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV,
SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 13-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
Prv.
CRL.A. NO.219/2005-F:
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE:
ANNEXURE-I: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE ADDL. SECOND
RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT.
RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
Prv.
P.BHAVADASAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.A. No. 219 OF 2005
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 13th day of February, 2013
J U D G M E N T
The accused in this case was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. He was found guilty. He was therefore convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for eight years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of which, he had to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year.
2. The incident goes thus:
The victim-PW1 and the accused are neighbours. At the relevant time the victim was studying in the 9th standard. She was staying with her parents and brother. On the date of incident which is alleged to be 20.06.2000, it is stated that in the night, the accused along with his brother came to the house of the victim. The elder brother of the accused then entered the room and told the victim that his younger brother is waiting outside and he intends to have sex with Crl.A.No.219/2005 -2- her. Then the elder brother goes out and younger brother entered and ravished her. As per initial stand taken by the prosecution, she did not divulge to anybody because the accused had promised to marry her. Later on, when she realized that she was being hoodwinked, she laid Ext. P1 complaint. Ext.P1, First Information Statement was recorded by PW7 who registered Ext.P4, FIR. Investigation was taken over by PW8. He prepared Ext.P5, scene mahazar and he says that on the basis of a statement given by the victim that the elder brother whom she implicated at the first instance had no role to play the incident at all and it was out of sheer vengeance that she had named him, he filed Ext.P8, report to delete the name of the said brother of the accused and the name was deleted. The Investigating Officer had PW1 sent for medical examination and PW9 examined the victim and furnished Ext.P9, report. Subsequent investigation was conducted by PW10 who procured the necessary documents, recorded the statement of witnesses, Crl.A.No.219/2005 -3- completed the investigation and laid charge before the court.
3. The JFCM-II, Pathanamthitta before whom the final report was laid, took cognizance of the offence. On finding that the offence is exclusively triable by the court of sessions, he committed the case to Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta. The said court made over the case to the Addl. District & Sessions Court (Ad-Hoc), Fast Track-II, Pathanamthitta for trial and disposal. That court on receipt of records and on appearance of the accused before it, framed charge under Section 376 IPC. To the charge, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution therefore had examined PWs 1 to 10 and had Ext.P1 to P10 marked. After the close of the prosecution evidence, accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and he denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence against him. He maintained that he is innocent. On finding that the accused could not be Crl.A.No.219/2005 -4- acquitted under Section 232 of Cr.P.C., he was asked to enter on his defence. He had already got Ext.D1 marked and adduced no further evidence.
4. On a consideration of the materials before it, the court below found that the evidence of PW1 is acceptable and on that basis the accused was found guilty of the offence. He was therefore convicted and sentenced as already mentioned. The said conviction and sentence are assailed in this appeal.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant challenged the finding of the court below on several grounds. The learned counsel pointed out that he had no quarrel with the proposition that if the evidence of prosecutrix is found to be without blemish and is wholly trustworthy, a conviction can be based on the same. But in the case on hand, according to the learned counsel, it can be seen that on a close reading of the evidence of PW1 taken along with the other items of evidence, she is a totally Crl.A.No.219/2005 -5- unreliable witness and no reliance can be placed on her testimony. The evidence regarding the incident is given only by PW1 and if that evidence is not capable of acceptance, there is no other evidence regarding the incident. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that PW1 has no consistent case regarding any of the material aspects. The version given by PW1 at the time of evidence is totally different from what she had stated in Ext.P1, First Information Statement and she as well as the her parents would say that they had given complaints to various authorities and on two occasions their statements were taken by the Police Officers. If that be so, according to the learned counsel, a cognizable offence having been disclosed by the statement of PW1 and other crime ought to have been registered by the Police Officers. Not only no crime was registered, there is absolutely no scrap of paper to show that the claim made by PWs 1, 2 and 3 that they had complained to various authorities is true. If that be so, it can be taken Crl.A.No.219/2005 -6- that the First Information Statement was lodged for the first time only on 13.01.2011 i.e. long after the incident and there is no acceptable explanation offered for the considerable delay in lodging the FIS.
6. As regards the actual incident also, there are varying versions so says the learned counsel for the appellant. While in Ext.P1, she would be confine the sexual intercourse to a single incident, she developed it further and at the time of narrating the fact to the doctor, it becomes 3 or 4 times and at the time of evidence it becomes two times. Pointing out that the evidence furnished by PW1, it is contended by the learned counsel that the reason given for the delay in lodging the FIS as could be gathered from Ext.P1 is that the accused had promised to marry her and she bonafide believed that he would do so. Later, when she realized that he was not sincere in his promise, she lodged the complaint. At the time of evidence, that is given a go by and she makes out a new case to the effect that she was Crl.A.No.219/2005 -7- threatened with dire consequence in the sense that if she revealed the incident to anybody her parents would be done away with. This threat is not indicated in Ext.P1. Finally, there is a development so as to explain the delay for the lodging of the FIS. The learned counsel also referred to Ext.D1 and other documents and pointed out that a close scrutiny would go to show that there is manipulation of FIR and other documents and the delay in FIR reaching the court is also not explained. It was pointed out by the learned counsel that even going by the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3, PW1 was taken to various hospital and in one of the hospital it was stated that she was pregnant but strangely enough, none of those documents were produced nor any of the witnesses concerned was examined. As regards the age of the victim, the learned counsel pointed out that Ext.P3 is insufficient to prove the date of birth of the victim for the simple reason that the person who had given the date of birth at the time of admitting the child to the school has not Crl.A.No.219/2005 -8- been examined. The evidence of PW6, the Head Master in School at the relevant time, is insufficient to prove Ext.P3 document. These inconsistencies, contradictions and infirmities have been omitted to be noticed by the court below and that are resulted in arriving at a wrong conclusion. The court below was not justified in implicitly trusting the evidence of PW1 in the light of the glaring inconsistency and contradiction in her evidence. The learned counsel therefore pointed out that the conviction and sentence are clearly unsustainable in law.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand pointed out that true, there are some infirmities in the prosecution case. But, PW1 has given a version of the incident and there is nothing to show that she had any reason to falsely implicate the accused. There is no justification for disbelieving her. She has given a consistent version of the incident and as far as her age is concerned, there is no challenge to Ext.P3 and if that be so, it is too late Crl.A.No.219/2005 -9- for the appellant to contend that Ext.P3 is not acceptable in proof of the age of the victim. It is also contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the delay in lodging the FIS has been properly explained and in cases of this nature, it has been held by the Apex Court that delay may not be very material, considering the fact that the incident brings no credit to the victim. The court below has analyzed the evidence of PW1 and found it to be acceptable and there is no reason to take a different view. In short, the learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that there are no grounds made out to interfere with the findings of the court below.
8. In spite of the best and earnest efforts made by this Court after going by the evidence, this Court finds it extremely difficult to agree with the learned Public Prosecutor. PW1 is the victim in this case. Her evidence is of considerable importance as that is the solitary evidence regarding the incident. She would say that she was residing with her parents and brother. She says about having gone Crl.A.No.219/2005 -10- to a marriage on the previous day, viz, in October 1999 in the jeep driven by the accused and the accused misbehaved towards her. She is specific that the incident had taken place on 20.06.2000. On that day, she had gone to inform about the illness of one of her relatives. On the way, she claimed to have met the accused who told her that he will be visiting her in the night. She, in her evidence, then says that in the dead of night, the accused had come to her house. At the time of evidence, she specific that along with the accused, his elder brother Manoj was also present. She reiterated that Manoj entered the room first and then told her that the accused namely Vinu is waiting outside. Thereafter, the accused entered the room and Manoj went out of the room. PW1 would then say that when she tried to cry aloud, her mouth was gagged by the accused, she was laid on the cot and the offensive act was committed. She would of course say at the time of evidence that before committing the act when she had objected the accused Crl.A.No.219/2005 -11- stated that if she refused to let him have sex, he would hang himself in the room. After the incident, she would say that he threatened her with dire consequences in case she revealed it to anybody. In fact, what he had said was that her parents would be done away with. Her further evidence is to the effect that the act was repeated by the accused on the same night. She asserts that all the facts told by her at the time of evidence was narrated by her to the police also on the first occasion. According to her evidence, in July, she came to know that she had conceived and then she revealed the incident to her aunt who in turn conveyed it to her parents. She then says about having filed complaint before the SNDP Yogam, the Vanitha Commission, the Superintendent of Police and also at the Konni Police Station. Her evidence is to the effect that at Konni Police Station the parties were called and a mediation talk was attempted which failed. As far as the complaint to the Superintendent of Police is concerned, her case is that two police men had Crl.A.No.219/2005 -12- come to her house and taken down the statements of PWs 1, 2 and 3 and had signed the same. She says she and the accused were called before the Vanitha Commission and since the matter was pending before the court, they told the prosecutrix that nothing could be done.
9. In cross examination, omission in the FIS brought were highlighted. It was pointed out to her that it was she who had given the cause of injuries to the doctor which she denied.
10. PW2 is the mother of the victim. She would say that she was unable to remember the date of birth of her daughter. According to her, her daughter revealed the incident to her. Her version is that the accused had stuffed the towel into her mouth to silence her and then committed the act of rape. However, she says that about one month after the incident, she was told about it by her daughter. Initially, the information was given to the aunt of PW1 who conveyed to her. She also speaks about having taken PW1 Crl.A.No.219/2005 -13- to various hospital and also about various complaints given by them to various authorities. PW3 is none other than the father of the victim. His deposition is also almost on the similar lines as that of PW2.
11. As rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor if the evidence of PW1 is cogent, convincing and credit worthy, that would be sufficient. But the question is whether it is so. Her conduct and her evidence before the court are contradictory and inconsistent. She seems to have given a go by to a good portion of the FI statement namely Ext.P1 and come up with a different story in the box at the time of giving evidence. In Ext.P1, she had no case that the act was performed more than once and there she also categorically mentioned about the presence of Manoj, the elder brother of the accused. It is come out in evidence that later the very next day she gave a statement to the police that Manoj had no role to play in the incident and that she had falsely implicated him. On the basis of that statement, Crl.A.No.219/2005 -14- his name was deleted in the party array. But strangely enough at the time of evidence she reverts back to her initial version and implicated Manoj also. It shows that she has no consistent version and at the time of evidence she says that the act was committed by the accused twice. These inconsistencies cannot be ignored as minor or insignificant. She makes considerable departure from her version in Ext.P1 and also set up a new case at the time of evidence. In Ext.P1, there is no mentioning of either PW1 or PW2 or PW3 having filed complaint before the SNDP Yogam, the Superintendent of Police, before the Police Station or before the Vanitha Commission. These things are mentioned for the first time at the time of evidence. It is significant in the light of the fact that there is considerable delay in lodging the FIS. If the claim made by PWs 1, 2 and 3 that they had filed complaints before several authorities and were unable to get any relief from any one of them, they had approached the Police Station and filed a Crl.A.No.219/2005 -15- statement that would have been an acceptable explanation. However there is absolutely no evidence in this case at all to show that claims made by PWs 1, 2 and 3 that they had filed complaints before several authorities is true. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, if as a matter of fact, the complaint was laid before the Police Station and also the Superintendent of Police and the Superintendent of Police had deputed two police men to take a statement which would have certainly disclosed a cognizable offence and the police could be bound to register a crime. For reasons best known to the prosecution, they did not produce any of those documents to show that the claims so made by PWs 1, 2 and 3 are correct. In the absence of any of the evidence in that regard the claim made by these witnesses cannot be accepted.
12. Yet another aspect is, in Ext.P1, the reason given for the delay is that the victim believed that the accused would keep his promise of marrying her. Later, when she Crl.A.No.219/2005 -16- realized that he was cheating her, she laid the complaint. This specific reason for delay is given a go by at the time of evidence. At the time of evidence, she comes forward with two explanations. Apart from the fact that she had filed complaint before several authorities, she says that she was threatened with dire consequences if she revealed the fact to anybody. However, her own evidence shows that within one month after the incident it became known to her parents. If the claim of PWs 1, 2 and 3 are to the effect that they had filed a complaint before various authorities is not true and is disbelieved then there is no reasonable explanation given for the considerable delay in lodging the FIS. Thus wide disparity between the statement in Ext.P1 and evidence given by PW1.
13. One cannot omit to note the evidence of PW9 and Ext.P9, the medical certificate issued by her. PW9, is the doctor who had examined the victim and Ext.P9 is her report. In Ext.P9, the date of incident is given as some time Crl.A.No.219/2005 -17- in 1999 and the name of the person is not stated and so also it is stated that she had sexual contact three or four times. Even though this is disowned by PW1, PW9 asserts that the entries made in Ext.P9 are on the basis of the informations given by PW1 herself and that she has recorded the same truly and correctly. This she asserts even in chief examination. There is no reason to disbelieve her. If that be so, that again make a dent in the evidence of PW1.
14. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on a decision reported in Peethambaran v. State of Kerala [1998 (1) KLT 602] regarding the delay in lodging the FIS and also the delay in the FIR reaching the court. These aspects needs to be considered only if one finds that the evidence of PW1 is acceptable. The learned counsel also relied on the decisions relating to the school register regarding the date of birth which also needs to be referred to only one if one finds that the evidence of PW1 is acceptable and credit worthy and the conviction can be Crl.A.No.219/2005 -18- based on that alone. If it is to be found that the evidence of PW1 is open to serious doubt and suspicion, then the other questions recede to the background and do not arise for consideration. In the light of the inconsistency made mention of above regarding the evidence of PW1 which is the solitary evidence, it is felt that it is quite unsafe to base a conviction on the evidence of PW1. The story attempted to be proved by the prosecutrix does not inspire the confidence in the mind of court.
15. It is not for the accused to answer the question as to why he should be implicated by the victim. It is for the prosecution to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. In the case of rape it is true that the prosecution can get the best evidence only from the prosecutrix and unless shown otherwise, it is to be accepted. But as already noticed and discussed, the evidence of PW1 does not go well with the other items of evidence and in fact, it contradictory to the other evidence adduced by the prosecution. In the light of Crl.A.No.219/2005 -19- these unsatisfactory state of affairs, it is felt that the conviction cannot stand.
Accordingly this appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed by the court below are set aside and it is held that the accused is not guilty of the offence alleged against him and is acquitted of the said charge. The bail bond shall stand cancelled and he is set at liberty. If any amount has been deposited, that shall be refunded to the appellant.
P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE ds