Biju @ Mathen v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/29TH JYAISHTA 1935** ## **CRL.A.No. 1207 of 2007 ( )** **--------------------------(AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC.NO. 25/2007 OF ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-1, KOTTAYAM DATED 30-06-2007) ------------------------------------------** **APPELLANT/ACCUSED:** **----------------------------------------** **BIJU @ MATHEN,S/O.SIVAN, KUMARAMKUNNEL VEEDU, EDAMATTAM KARA, POOVARANI VILLAGE.** **BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV** **RESPONDENT/STATE:** **-------------------------------------** **STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. (CRIME NO.205 OF 2006 OF PALA POLICE STATION).** ## **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.S.SREEJITH** **THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** **P.BHAVADASAN, J. --------------------------------------Crl. Appeal No.1207 OF 2007 --------------------------------------Dated this the 19[th] day of June, 2013.** ## **J U D G M E N T** The accused was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 450, 376 and 506(I) of Indian Penal Code and was found guilty on all counts. He was, therefore, convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default clause of rigorous imprisonment for five months under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/- with default clause of rigorous imprisonment for four months under Section 450 IPC and also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default clause of rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 506(I) IPC. If the fine amounts were realised, a sum of Rs.5,000/- was directed to be paid to PW1 as compensation. The sentences were **Crl.Appeal No.1207/2007** **2** directed to run concurrently. Set off as per law was also allowed. 2. PW1 is the victim in this case. The incident which resulted in the complaint is said to have occurred in early April 2005. PW1 resides with her husband and children. When her husband goes for his business purpose and the children goes to school, she is alone at home. The accused is a toddy tapper by profession and he taps in the nearby property. Unable to bear the harassment of the accused, it is alleged that earlier i.e. on 12.01.2005, a complaint namely, Ext.P2 was lodged before the Police. The allegation is that the accused was called to the Police Station and made to undertake that he will not indulge in such activities any more and the matter was given a quietus to. Thereafter the allegation is that after three months of the date of Ext.P2 at the time when there was no one at home, the accused forced himself to the house of the victim and she was sexually assaulted. She was threatened with dire consequences in case she tried to reveal the incident to anybody. It is stated that the accused was a peeping tom and unable to bear the mischief any more, finally on 20.03.2006 Ext.P1 First Information Statement **Crl.Appeal No.1207/2007** **3** was laid. 3. PW7, the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, recorded Ext.P1 and registered a crime as per Ext.P8 First Information Report. PW8 took over the investigation. He prepared Ext.P7 scene mahazar. He had PW1 examined by PW3 doctor and obtained Ext.P4 wound certificate. In the meanwhile, statement of PW1 under Section 164 Cr.P.C was recorded by PW2. After the arrest of the accused, he was subjected to potency test and PW8 recorded the statement of witnesses. He obtained necessary records, completed the investigation and laid charge before court. 4. The court before which final report was laid took cognizance of the offence and on finding that the offences are exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, the case was committed to Sessions Court, Kottayam under Section 209 Cr.P.C. The said court made over the case to Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-I), Kottayam for trial and disposal. The latter court, on receipt of records and on appearance of the accused, framed charges for the offences punishable under Sections 450, **Crl.Appeal No.1207/2007** **4** 376 and 506(I) IPC. To the charge, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, therefore, had PWs 1 to 8 examined and Exts.P1 to P8 marked. 5. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence against him and maintained that he is innocent. Additionally, he stated that from April 2002 onwards, he was tapping toddy from the property of one Joshi which is in the neighbourhood of PW1's house. He would say that PW1 and her husband used to buy toddy from him and they gained acquaintance with each other. According to him, on 12.03.2003, he happened to see the illicit relationship between the brother of the husband of PW1 and PW1. PW1 later requested him not to divulge the incident to anybody. Subsequently, on 18.03.2003, he was invited by PW1 to her house and they had physical contact. According to him, it so happened that DW1 happened to see the illicit connection between PW1 and the accused and he made it public and that happened in November 2004. Thereafter he would say that he **Crl.Appeal No.1207/2007** **5** had no connection or contact with PW1. He would also say that PW1 had borrowed money from him on several occasions. He denied of having committed rape on PW1. On finding that the accused could not be acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C, he was asked to enter on his defence. He examined DW1 from his side. 6. On appreciation of the evidence in the case, the court below came to the conclusion that the evidence of PW1 is trustworthy and accepting the same, the court had entered a conviction on all the three counts as already mentioned. The said conviction and sentence are assailed in this appeal. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant assailed the findings of the court below on several grounds. It was pointed out by him that the finding of the court below is based on the solitary evidence of PW1 and a reading of the evidence of PW1 would clearly show that it is far from satisfactory and does not pass scrutiny. It could not be said that the evidence of PW1 is of a sterling character so as to base a conviction on the same. Attention was drawn to the fact that even though four of the witnesses were cited by the prosecution to speak about the **Crl.Appeal No.1207/2007** **6** incident or the supplementary acts thereto, none of them was examined and the most important among them is the husband of the victim who was also not examined. Attention was also drawn to the fact that Ext.P2 complaint which is alleged to have filed is in fact filed by the husband of the victim and since reliance was placed on that document, it was absolutely essential to examine the said person and non examination of that important witness calls for drawing adverse inference against the prosecution. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, referring to the evidence of PW1, pointed out that she has made considerable developments and embellishments at the time of evidence and has in fact admitted that she had physical relationship with the accused four or five times subsequent to the objectionable act pointed out by her. There is nothing in the evidence of PW1, according to the learned counsel, to show that the subsequent acts of physical contacts were as a result of intimidation, coercion or threat and that would be an indication of the fact that if at all there was any physical contact, that was a consensual one. Learned counsel then pointed out that the considerable delay in **Crl.Appeal No.1207/2007** **7** lodging the complaint cannot be ignored in this case. No reasonable explanation is offered for the delay and the explanation offered cannot stand scrutiny. The incident is alleged to have occurred one year ago regarding which a complaint is laid only on 20.03.2006. It is significant to notice, according to the learned counsel, that there is no complaint regarding the acts committed subsequent to the act which forms the basis for the complaint and if that be so, the delay has to be viewed seriously. The reason given that recently the accused had been peeping into the house of the victim and had caused considerable annoyance and made her life difficult and that prompted her to file the complaint can be taken only with a pinch of salt. 9. Learned counsel fairly conceded that if, as a matter of fact, this Court finds that the evidence of the prosecutrix is cogent, convincing and creditworthy, a conviction can certainly be based on the same. But while doing so, the court shall not ignore the inherent improbabilities in the evidence and also the fact that the evidence of the prosecutrix in the case suffers from various **Crl.Appeal No.1207/2007** **8** infirmities. When there is some doubt regarding the version given by the prosecutrix, it is only proper and prudent to look for corroboration and once look for that, there is nothing in the case on hand. Learned counsel pointed out that it is extremely hazardous to enter a finding of guilt solely on the basis of the testimony of PW1. 10. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the findings of the court below. It is pointed out that there was no reason as to why PW1 should falsely speak against the accused and no woman would venture to make such an accusation at her peril. It is significant to notice, according to the learned Public Prosecutor, that Ext.P2 complaint was laid before the Police regarding the acts committed by the accused and he had been called to the Police Station and warned not to repeat the same. It was thereafter that the act of sexual assault was committed on the victim. The victim has given a cogent and convincing reason as to what prevented her from laying a complaint till 20.03.2006 and there is no reason to disbelieve her in that regard. It is also pointed out that non examination of the husband of the victim is **Crl.Appeal No.1207/2007** **9** of no consequence since the evidence of PW1 stands scrutiny and there is no need for corroboration when it is found that it is cogent and convincing. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the court below has chosen to accept the evidence of PW1 and unless the findings are shown to be perverse, this Court will not be justified in interfering with the same under the appellate jurisdiction. Learned Public Prosecutor also pointed out that in fact while being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused has admitted the illicit relationship with the victim and that goes a long way in helping the prosecution to show that there was violation as claimed by PW1. In short, the contention is that there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the court below. 11. The law regarding appreciation of evidence in the case of rape is well settled. If the evidence of the prosecutrix is found to be convincing, cogent, creditworthy and beyond suspicion, then the court need not look for corroboration at all. Even otherwise, corroboration is only a rule of prudence and not a rule of law. There are three categories of witnesses; i) wholly reliable **Crl.Appeal No.1207/2007** **10** ii) wholly unreliable and iii) partially reliable and partially unreliable. It is well settled that in the case of wholly reliable witness, the court need not look for corroboration at all so also in the case of wholly unreliable witness. It is only in the 3[rd] category of witness, by way of prudence and caution, that the court needs to look for corroboration to base its finding or conclusion. 12. It is by now well established that the prosecutrix in a case of rape cannot be treated as an accomplice. The status of the victim is that of an injured witness and therefore, her evidence is entitled to considerable weight. Unless it is shown that the evidence of the prosecutrix suffers from serious infirmities, it may not be proper for the court to reject the same based on the insignificant inconsistencies and contradictions. One must remember that the witness namely, prosecutrix is deposing after a considerable passage of time and also she is speaking about the very agonising and humiliating act and therefore, there are bound to be inconsistencies, contradictions, developments and embellishments. Unless those affect the core **Crl.Appeal No.1207/2007** **11** of the prosecution, there is no consequence at all. 13. Bearing the above principles in mind, an attempt shall now be made to analyse the evidence of PW1 to see whether it passes scrutiny. One may at once remember that the prosecution rests its case on the testimony of PW1. For the reasons best known to the prosecution, they chose not to examine CW2, the husband of PW1 who, according to the prosecution, is in the know of things and also the two children of PW1. The evidence of PW1 shows that some day in April 2005 while she was all alone at home, by about 10 a.m, the accused entered into the house through the kitchen door, hugged her from behind, dragged her and then ravished her. She then speaks about Ext.P2 complaint filed before the Police against the accused and also that the accused was called to the Police Station and was forced to make an undertaking that he would desist from such acts in future. She speaks about having given Section 164 Cr.P.C statement before the learned Magistrate. She also speaks about the harassment by the accused. She says that his continuous act of peeping into the house and harassing her **Crl.Appeal No.1207/2007** **12** ultimately resulted in filing Ext.P1 First Information Statement before the Police. She would say that the mischief committed by the accused became so unbearable that on 18.03.2006 she disclosed the entire facts to her husband and he advised her to file a complaint and thus the complaint was lodged. 14. One must notice that the complaint is almost one year of the incident. It is significant to notice that even though PW1 in her evidence has admitted that there were subsequent physical contacts between her and the accused, she has no case that those were under threat, intimidation or under compulsion. Of course, she would say that he had taken advantage of the first sexual assault and then had contact with her subsequently. However, there is no mention of these aspects in Ext.P1 at all. One fails to understand as to why the prosecution was shy to examine at least CW2, the husband of the victim who was in the know of things. Much of what is spoken to by PW1, according to her, had been conveyed to CW2 and it was CW2 who had in fact filed Ext.P2 complaint. In fact, he would have been the best person to speak about the same. **Crl.Appeal No.1207/2007** **13** 15. It is no doubt true that PW8 investigating officer has stated that there is endorsement in the register of the Police Station to show that such a complaint has been received. But it is strongly disputed by the defence that he was called to the Police Station and was made to undertake that he will not indulge in such unpleasant acts. This fact was not attempted to be proved by the prosecution by producing necessary documents. Even assuming that Ext.P2 was filed as shown in the complaint, how far it advances the case of the victim in this case. The reason given for the delay in lodging the complaint is far from satisfactory. All that is stated is that the victim was threatened with dire consequences immediately after the incident if she revealed the incident to anybody. What, according to her, had prompted her to file complaint is the subsequent harassment of the accused and peeping into the house latest of which was on 18.03.2006. Going by the evidence of PW1, on 18.03.2006 while they were celebrating the birthday of one of their children, it so happened that the husband saw the accused peeping into the house and he chased him. Thereafter when the victim went to **Crl.Appeal No.1207/2007** **14** fetch water, she had also seen the accused hiding. It is this act which, according to her, made her frantic and compelled her to revealed the incident to her husband. It was then that her husband advised her to file Ext.P1 First Information Statement. It has to be said that the reason for the delay is far from satisfactory and convincing. 16. Apart from the fact that Ext.P1 does not disclose the subsequent physical contacts by the parties which are seen concealed at the first instance and which are brought out in cross examination of PW1, it is difficult to believe that merely because the accused was found peeping into the house of the victim, her life becomes miserable. Here, one has to notice the explanation offered by the accused while questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He admits of having physical relationship with the victim and he also claims that all the physical contacts were with her consent. 17. One cannot omit to note that the subsequent acts of physical contacts were all in the house of the victim and to be more precise, above the staircase. As already mentioned, there **Crl.Appeal No.1207/2007** **15** is no whisper anywhere that on any of those occasions she was threatened or intimidated. In the decision in _**Rajoo & Ors.** vs._ _**State of M.P.**_ (AIR 2009 Supreme Court 858), it was held as follows: “9. The aforesaid judgments lay down the basic principle that ordinarily the evidence of a prosecutrix should not be suspect and should be believed, the more so as her statement has to be evaluated at par with that of an injured witness and if the evidence is reliable, no corroboration is necessary. Undoubtedly, the aforesaid observations must carry the greatest weight and we respectfully agree with them, but at the same time they cannot be universally and mechanically applied to the facts of every case of sexual assault which comes before the Court. It cannot be lost sight of that rape causes the greatest distress and humiliation to the victim but at the same time a false allegation of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation and damage to the accused as well. The accused must also be protected against the possibility of false implication, particularly where a large number of accused are involved. It must, further, be borne in mind that the broad principle is that an injured witness was present at the time when the incident happened and that ordinarily such a witness would not tell a lie as to the actual **Crl.Appeal No.1207/2007** **16** assailants, but there is no presumption or any basis for assuming that the statement of such a witness is always correct or without any embellishment or exaggeration”. 18. It is no doubt true that in the decisions in _**Prabha** vs._ _**State of Kerala**_ (1992 (2) KLT 892) and in _**State of Haryana**_ vs. _**Basti Ram**_ (AIR 2013 Supreme Court 1307), it has been held that if the evidence of the prosecutrix is beyond doubt, conviction can be certainly based on the same. But, however, the courts have also been cautioned that in all cases, the said rule cannot be mechanically applied and it cannot be taken as a rule of law and the version given by the prosecutrix cannot always be taken as gospel truth. The Apex Court has said that there is no uniform rule in that regard. One cannot omit to note the reluctance on the part of the prosecution to examine CWs 2 to 5. Even assuming that the two children could have been spared, going by the prosecution case, CW2 was in the know of things and CW5, a neighbour who, according to the prosecution, was also in the know of things. Even assuming that CW5 need not be examined, **Crl.Appeal No.1207/2007** **17** there is no reason as to why CW2 was not brought before court. It is here that the defence had a case that if he was examined, the truth would have come out. 19. Whatever that be, in the case on hand, it cannot be said that the evidence of PW1 is of a sterling character or that it is cogent, convincing and creditworthy so as to inspire confidence in the mind of court and to pass conviction solely on the basis of the same. This Court is unable to accept the reason given by the court below to enter a conviction. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed against the accused are set aside and it is held that the accused is not guilty of the offences under Sections 450, 376 and 506(I) of Indian Penal Code. He shall stand acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. His bail bond shall stand cancelled and he is set at liberty. If the fine amount has already been paid, the same shall be refunded to him. ## **P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE** smp