Ajithkumar G. v. State of Kerala & Victim X

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941** ## **Crl.MC.No.6689 OF 2019(E)** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 1010/2014 OF SPECIAL COURT UNDER POCSO ACT, ALAPPUZHA** **CRIME NO.331/2014 OF Punnapra Police Station, Alappuzha** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:** **AJITHKUMAR G., AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN, ASSARIPARAMBU, CHAMPAKULAM, PULLANGADI P.O., ALAPPUZHA - 688 505.** **BY ADVS. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN SMT.T.J.SEEMA** ## **RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANT:** **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM -682 031.** **2 VICTIM X** **R2 BY ADV. M.R.ARUNKUMAR** **SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.MC.No.6689 OF 2019** **2** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ========================= Crl.M.C.No.6689 of 2019** **==========================** Dated this the 16[th] day of December, 2019 ## **O R D E R** The petitioner herein has been arrayed as accused No.2 among the two accused in the instant crime No.331/2014 of Punnapra Police Station, Alappuzha for offences punishable under Sections 376(n) of the IPC, Sections 3(2) read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Sections 3(1)(xi), 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The police after investigation has duly filed the impugned Anx.A1 final report/charge sheet in the above said crime No.331/2014 of Punnapra Police Station, Alappuzha and after commuted proceedings the case is now pending as Sessions Case S.C.No.1010/2014 on the file of the Additional District & Sessions Court notified to deal with POCSO cases, Alappuzha. The charges have also been duly framed in this case as per Anx.A5 on 19.01.2019. The petitioner seeks quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings mainly on the ground that subsequently during the pendency of the present proceedings, the petitioner/accused has married the 2[nd] respondent-lady victim and that the lady victim has no further issues **Crl.MC.No.6689 OF 2019** **3** with the petitioner and that she does not wish to continue with the prosecution proceedings any further. Further it is also submitted on behalf of additional respondent No.2 (lady victim) that her marriage with the petitioner has been duly solemnized as can be seen from Anx.A2 marriage certificate dated 22.09.2017 issued by the Local Marriage Registrar and that a girl child has also been born to her in her relationship with the petitioner/accused, etc. In that regard petitioner mainly place reliance on the decisions of this Court in cases as in _**Freddy @ Antony Francis & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr.**_ [2017 KHC 344 = 2018 (1) KLD 558] and _**Denu P.Thampi v. Ms.X**_ [2019 (3) KHC 199 = 2019 (2) KLT 996]. 2. Heard Sri.S.Sanal Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (A2), Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Prosecutor appearing for R1-State and Sri.M.R.Arunkumar, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondent No.2 (lady victim). The allegations/charges framed on as per Anx.A5 dated 19.01.2019 are as follows: Firstly, accused No.1, had committed rape on the prosecutrix (the CW1), who was a juvenile belonging to a schedule caste community, repeatedly at various places including in room No.107, MKT Providence Lodge, Ward No.V, Purakkadu Grama Panchayat on 07.05.2013 between 12.30 P.M and 2.00 P.M and on 08.07.2013 between 9.30 A.M **Crl.MC.No.6689 OF 2019** **4** and 5.30 P.M after made her believe that he would marry her and thereafter putting her under fear that she would be blackmailed and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC. Secondly, 2[nd] accused had committed rape on the said CW1 repeatedly at several places including in the House bearing door No.12/120, Nedumudi Grama Panchayat and in the said Providence lodge on 14.11.2013 between 10.15 A.M and 5.45 P.M and as a result of that she became pregnant, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC. Thirdly, the above said accused Nos.1 and 2 had committed gang rape on the said CW1 at the said places and time, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 376 D of the IPC. Fourthly, the above said accused Nos.1 and 2 had committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the said CW1 repeatedly and she became pregnant, and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 5(1), 5(j)(ii) & 5 (g) r/w Sec.6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Lastly, the above said accused Nos.1 and 2, by their aforesaid acts had committed an offence punishable under Section 3(2) (v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, during the course of the same transaction **Crl.MC.No.6689 OF 2019** **5** within the cognizance of the Court. 3. Going by the deposition of PW1 (R2 herein/victim) as per Anxs.A3/ A6, she would say that she was born on 21.03.1995 and that the entry in her school certificate that she was born in August 1995 is a mistake. Anx.A2 is the marriage certificate issued by the Local Marriage Registrar regarding the solemnization of marriage between the petitioner/accused and the 2nd respondent and in Anx.A2 marriage certificate, it is inter alia stated that the date of birth of 2 nd respondent herein is 21.05.1996. This Court had specifically directed the learned Prosecutor as well as the Court below to appraise this Court as to what exactly is the date of birth of the 2nd respondent as per the prosecution case. 4. The learned Prosecutor would point out that the specific case of the prosecution as made out in the impugned Anx.A1 final report/charge sheet is to the effect that the 2nd respondent herein was born on 21.08.1995 as per the birth certificate issued by the statutory Registrar of Births and Deaths. The Sessions Court has also confirmed that as per the prosecution case the date of birth of the 2nd respondent as alleged by the prosecution is 21.08.1995. If that be so, going by the admitted prosecution case, 2nd respondent herein has completed the majority age of 18 years on 21.08.2013. A bare perusal of Anx.A5 **Crl.MC.No.6689 OF 2019** **6** charges would make it clear that like the day light that only a single instance of sexual intercourse is said to have been done by the petitioner and the specific case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had committed sexual intercourse with the 2nd respondent - victim on 14.11.2013. Therefore, admittedly going by the prosecution case 2nd respondent had completed the majority age of 18 years as on 14.11.2013, the date of the alleged sexual incident. On that ground alone, it is only to be held that none of the POCSO offences alleged against the petitioner will lie. In that regard it is borne in mind that the case as against 1st accused may stand in a different footing for the simple reason that going by Anx.A5 charges, he said to have committed the act of sexual intercourse on 07.05.2013 and 08.07.2013 and as on those days, the 2nd respondent has not attained at the majority age of 18 years going by the date of birth relied on by the prosecution, as admittedly she has completed the majority age of 18 years only on 21.08.2013. Therefore, the sole aspect which has to be borne in mind is that the contention raised by the prosecution that the question of consent is immaterial, will also crumble to the ground for the simple reason that the allegation as against the petitioner herein (A2) regarding the sexual incident, which is said to have happened on a day much after the 2nd respondent complete the majority age of 18 years, then the question of consent would also **Crl.MC.No.6689 OF 2019** **7** assume great importance. All through out the petitioner/accused has a definite case that even it is assumed that sexual incident has taken place, then it was only on the basis of consent of the 2nd respondent and that this is all the more so, as even the prosecution would allege that there was an affair between the petitioner/accused and the 2nd respondent. It is also relevant to note that the 2nd respondent had prematurely given birth to the above said girl child on 30.05.2014. Further it is the indisputable fact of the matter that the petitioner/accused has married the 2nd respondent victim on 13.07.2017 as certified in Anx.A2 marriage certificate dated 22.09.2017 issued by the Local Marriage Registrar. 5. That apart it appears that the alleged sexual incidents involving A1 and A2 viz a viz, the 2nd respondent victim appears to be two different and distinct incidents. The only connection appears to be that A1 and A2 were friends. As per Anx.A5 charges, A1 is said to have committed sexual intercourse with the victim on 07.05.2013 and 08.07.2013. Whereas the petitioner herein (A2) is said to have committed sexual intercourse with the victim on another occasion, viz 14.11.2013. There are no allegations that the above said incidents are in any manner interrelated except that A1 and A2 happens to be friends and the victim happens to be the same person. In these circumstances this Court has no hesitation to hold that even otherwise the allegations **Crl.MC.No.6689 OF 2019** **8** against A1 and A2 could not have been tried jointly as the above said separate offences said to have been committed by A1 and A2 cannot be said to have been offences committed in the course of the same transaction as understood in Clause (b) of Section 223 of the Cr.P.C. So this Court is of the view that, the joint trial is also misconceived. So also since there is an allegation in Anx.A5 charge of gang rape, as the above said incidents involving A1 and A2 are separate and distinct incidents, the allegation that petitioner herein (A2) has committed gang rape on the victim along with A1 herein also does not appear to be tenable. 6. Further it has been held by the Apex Court and various High Courts in a series of decisions as in {see _**Shimbhu & Anr. v. State of Haryana**_ [2014 (13) SCC 318], _**Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat**_ [ _(_ 2017) 9 SCC 641], _**Anita Maria Dias v. State of Maharashtra**_ [(2018) 3 SCC 290], _**Sebastian @ Solly v. State of Kerala**_ [2015 (1) KLJ 384, etc.} that ordinarily quashment of serious offences like the one as per Section 376 (rape), murder (302), decoity may not be done merely on the ground of settlement between the parties. However an exception has been made to this approach and it has been held by this Court in various cases as in _**Freddy @ Antony Francis & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr.**_ [2017 KHC 344 = 2018 (1) KLD 558] and _**Denu P.Thampi v. Ms.X**_ [2019 (3) KHC 199 = 2019 **Crl.MC.No.6689 OF 2019** **9** (2) KLT 996]. In the instant case it appears that the petitioner has subsequently married the 2nd respondent victim on 13.07.2017, as is certified by Anx.A2 marriage certificate dated 22.09.2017 issued by the Local Marriage Registrar. 7. The learned Prosecutor has requested to get instructions10 in this matter and today when the matter has taken up for consideration, the learned Prosecutor would submit that on the basis of the instructions from the Investigating Officer, the Investigating Officer has conducted a detailed enquiry in the matter and also recorded the statement of 2nd respondent, wherein she has stated that, she has duly married the petitioner as certified in Anx.A2 marriage certificate and that the factual aspects stated by her in Anx.A4 affidavit are correct and has been made by her voluntarily and without any coercion. Further it appears that the specific stand of the 2nd respondent is that if the impugned criminal proceedings are not quashed, then it affect her more detrimentally and that her marital life will be disturbed and there will be none to look after her and her girl child, as the accused is her husband. In the light of these aspects going by the dictum laid by this Court in decisions as in _**Freddy @ Antony Francis & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr.**_ [2017 KHC 344 = 2018 (1) KLD 558] and _**Denu P.Thampi v. Ms.X**_ [2019 (3) KHC 199 = 2019 (2) KLT 996], this Court **Crl.MC.No.6689 OF 2019** **10** is inclined to quash the impugned criminal proceedings in the light of the subsequent marriage entered into between the parties. 8. Accordingly, in view of the above said aspects, it is ordered that the impugned Anx.A1 final report/charge sheet as well as the impugned Anx.A5 charges framed to the extent it is directed against the petitioner herein(A2) for the offences as per Sections 376(2)(n), Section 376D (Gang Rape) and the offences as per Sections 5(I), 5(j)(ii) & 5(g) r/w Sec.6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, will stand quashed and rescinded. Further 2nd respondent victim belongs to Schedule Caste Community and therefore the offence as per Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 has also been included and the same will stand quashed, to the extent it is directed against A2. It is made clear the quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings at Anx.A1 final report/charge sheet and Anx.A5 charges are only to the limited extent it affects the petitioner herein (A2). It is made clear that the independent offences alleged against A1, may proceed further in accordance with law. However, it is made clear that since allegation regarding Section 376 D (Gang Rape) is only in respect of involvement of two accused persons and as the said allegation to the extent concerns the petitioner herein (A2) has also been quashed, it goes without saying that the the said quashment would also affect the charges as against the **Crl.MC.No.6689 OF 2019** **11** other accused person also. The trial as against A1 herein may proceed in accordance with law in respect of the charges against him, as indicated above. 9. The Registry will forward copy of this order to the Additional Sessions notified to deal with POCSO cases, Alappuzha who is dealing with S.C.No.1010/2014 for necessary information. Petitioner will also produce copies of the order before the Sessions Court concerned as well as the Investigating Officer concerned. Office of the Advocate General will forward copy of this order to the Investigating Officer concerned, for necessary information. With these observations and directions, the above Criminal Miscellaneous Case stands finally disposed of. **Sd/-** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS** **JUDGE** mpm **Crl.MC.No.6689 OF 2019** **12** ## **APPENDIX** ||**APPENDIX**| |---|---| |**PETITIONER'S **|**EXHIBITS:**| |**ANNEXURE A1**|**CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN**| ||**CRIME NO.331/2014 OF PUNNAPRA POLICE**| ||**STATION.**| |**ANNEXURE A2**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE**| ||**DATED 22/9/2017 ISSUED BY HE CHAMPAKULAM**| ||**GRAMA PANCHAYATH.**| |**ANNEXURE A3**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION GIVEN BY**| ||**THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT IN**| ||**S.C.NO.1010/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE**| ||**ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT-1,**| ||**ALAPPUZHA.**| |**ANNEXURE A4**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY 2ND**| ||**RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEXURE A5**|**A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COURT CHARGE IN**| ||**S.C. NO. 1010/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE**| ||**ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-1, ALAPPUZHA.**| |**ANNEXURE A6**|**CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW1**| ||**IN S.C.NO.1010/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE**| ||**ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT-1,**| ||**ALAPPUZHA.**| |**ANNEXURE A7**|**CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW2**| ||**IN S.C.NO. 1010/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE**| ||**ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT-1,**| ||**ALAPPUZHA.**| ||// TRUE COPY //| ||P.A. TO JUDGE|