Kerala High Court
Lijo Joseph vs State Of Kerala on 9 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1942
CRL.A.No.122 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRL.MC 171/2021 DATED 09-02-2021 OF
IST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR
CRIME NO.45/2021 OF VELLIKULANGARA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
APPELLANT/SOLE ACCUSED:
LIJO JOSEPH
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O.LATE JOSEPH, AMBADAN HOUSE,
MARAMCODE, KUTTICHIRA,
CHALAKUDY,
THRISSUR DISTRICT-680724.
BY ADV. SRI.RAPHAEL THEKKAN
RESPONDENT/STATE OF KERALA:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SHO,
VELIKKULLANGARA POLICE STATION,
THRISSUR DISTRICT
THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031.
2 ADDL. SECOND RESPONDENT IMPLEADED
XXXXXXXXX
ADDITIONAL SECOND RESPONDENT IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDER DATED 19.02.2021 IN CRL.MA NO.1/2021.
R1 BY SRI. M.S. BREEZ, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
R2 BY ADV. SMT.MINI.V.A.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
08.03.2021, THE COURT ON 09.03.2021 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl. A. No. 122 of 2021 2
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal preferred under Section 14A(2) of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The appellant is the
accused in Crime No.45/2021 of Vellikulangara Police Station in
Thrissur District. The case was registered on the basis of the First
Information Statement given by the victim girl, who is only 11 years
old, alleging offence punishable under Sections 354, 354A(1)(ii),
354A(1)(iv), 354B, 447 of the IPC, Sections 7 r/w 8, 10 r/w 9(m) of
the POCSO Act and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(Va) of the
SC/ST POA Act, 1989.
2. The substance of the allegation is that the appellant had
taken the minor girl to the terrace of his own house at Maramkode,
made sexual advancements against her after trying to denude her.
When the child had escaped from his custody and run away to her
house in the neighbourhood, he chased her by trespassing upon their
property and called her through the window. The appellant was
arrested on 21.01.2021 and since then is in judicial custody.
3. The application for bail moved before the Special Court
was dismissed by the impugned order dated 09.02.2021.
4. Notice was issued to the victim as provided under Section
15A(5) of the Act. On receipt of notice, a counsel has entered
appearance for the victim.
5. The learned counsel on both sides were heard. According
to the learned counsel for the appellant, there is no allegation of any
aggravated sexual offence against the victim, that she has not suffered
any injury, investigation is almost over, that the appellant is in custody
for more than 48 days, he has two small children and also to look after
his mentally re-tarted sister.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the victim
submitted that the father of the victim is no more, the victim is being
maintained by her mother who is a housemaid; they reside about two
kms. away, the mother goes for work after taking the child to her
sister's house and the appellant is the neighbour of that house; after the
incident, the child is in a very frightened condition; they are afraid of
the appellant.
7. The victim is a 11 year old girl. There are prima facie
reasons to think that the appellant had made advances against the child
with clear intention of abusing her sexually. The place of occurrence
is the terrace portion of the residential building of the appellant. The
victim is a contemporanean of the children of the appellant. It is
patent, at least for the present, that he had approached the child with
malicious and corrupt intention to ravish her.
8. The learned Public Prosecutor is not in a position to state
the stage of investigation. But it is evident that final report is not yet
filed. In the said circumstances and having regard to the submission
of the learned counsel for the victim, that they are in a very traumatic
stage after the incident, it is not in the interests of justice to release the
appellant on bail. The allegations and the gravity of the offence also
desist the Court from considering the application for bail at this stage.
The learned Special Judge has dismissed the application for bail,
taking into consideration all relevant aspects. There is no reason to
interfere with the order.
The appeal is dismissed.
sd/-
K.HARIPAL,
JUDGE
DCS/08.03.2021
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT IN CRIME
NO.45/2021 OF VELIKULLANGARA POLICE
STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT, DATED
21.01.2021.
ANNEXURE II CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
09.02.2021 IN CRL.M.C.NO.171/2021 OF
THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR.
ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED
06.02.2021 ISSUED BY LITTLE FLOWER
HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE, ANGAMALY.
