Kerala High Court
Pramod @ Sreekantan vs State Of Kerala on 5 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA
FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1943
CRL.MC NO. 7158 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 641/2013 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES AND SEXUAL
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ARISING FROM
CRIME NO.334/2006 OF VALIYATHURA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PETITIONERS:
PRAMOD @ SREEKANTAN,
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O.VISWAPPAN, ILIPARA HOUSE, KARIKKAKAM BEACH P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN
SMT.B.ANUSREE
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 31.
2 VICTIM
XXXX
BY ADV A.K.MANU
OTHER PRESENT:
PP .SRI. RENJIT GEORGE,SR GP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 7158 OF 2019 2
ORDER
This Crl.M.C has been filed seeking to quash Annexure 1 final
report and all proceedings in SC.No.641/2013 of Additional
Sessions Court for the trial of Cases Relating to Atrocities and
Sexual Violence against Women and Children,
Thiruvananthapuram arising from Crime No.334/2006 of
Valiyathura Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. The prosecution case is that on a day two months prior
to 11.12.2006 the 2nd accused induced the victim, a minor girl
aged 17 years to go from her house at Kadakampally Village and
after conducting a mock marriage on 1.9.2006 he had taken her
to Kanyakumari and committed rape on her at room No.A-13 of
New Cap Hotel. It is also alleged that he had committed rape on
her on 29.9.2006 at room No.107 and on 8.10.2006 at room
No.102 of that hotel. Thereafter, on 10.12.2006 the petitioner/1st
accused had taken the victim to Kanyakumari and committed
rape on her at room No.201 of Rehoboth lodge, Kanyakumari.
Thereafter, when the 1st accused/petitioner reached at
Thampanoor junction, the 2nd accused caused hurt on the victim
by beating on her body. Thus the accused alleged to have
committed offences punishable under Sections 366(A), 376 and
323 read with Section 34 of IPC.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner a full
fledged trial was conducted with respect to the 1 st accused in SC
No.1456/2017 before Additional Sessions Court for the trial of
Cases Relating to Atrocities and Sexual Violence against Women
and Children, Thiruvananthapuram and as per the judgment dated
19.12.2017, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the 2 nd accused
under Section 232 of Cr.P.C.
4. Notice was issued to the learned Public Prosecutor as
well as the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant
appeared through Adv.Renju Mohan G. Heard the learned counsel
for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the
counsel for the defacto complainant.
5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner even
though, the present petitioner is arrayed as the 1st accused, the
entire allegation as per the prosecution case is that the 2 nd
accused induced the victim to go from her house and he has
conducted a mock marriage and thereafter committed rape on her
on 1.9.2006 at room No.A-13 of New Cap Hotel. As per the
prosecution case it is subsequent to that it is alleged that this
accused though arrayed as the 1st accused, on 10.12.2006 had
taken the victim to Kanyakumari and committed rape on her in a
lodge.
6. The learned counsel contended that even in the trial
against the 2nd accused the defacto complainant totally withdrawn
the statement given to the police and her mother also did not
support the prosecution case. The mother of the victim girl stated
that she don't know whether PW1 had given any statement to the
police. Further that she had not given any statement to the Police.
7. On an evaluation of the evidence adduced in that case
taking into account the fact that the victim is totally retracted
from the version given to the police, and since it was a case if no
evidence the court was forced to acquit the 2nd accused under
Section 232 of Cr.P.C.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the defacto
complainant contended that no such incident as alleged has
occurred and she has already undergone an ordeal of a trial and
she may not be driven to the 2nd trial with respect to the present
accused. She also sworn in an affidavit attested by a notary which
is produced as Annexure III from the side of the petitioner. In the
Anneuxre III affidavit she has categorically stated that now she is
married and residing with her husband. She is leading a happy
and peaceful married life. The continuance of the proceedings in
the case will affect the peace and harmony of her marital
relationship. She didn't have any grievance against the petitioner.
9. The prosecution case has already been found to be not
proved and even if the trial is allowed to be continued against the
petitioner nothing fruitful is going to happen as per the affidavit
sworn in by the defacto complainant the victim. Since she is
married presently to another man and living peacefully, the
continuance of this proceeding will upset the peace and harmony
of her life also.
In the result, I find it just and proper to quash further
proceedings against the petitioner/1st accused in crime 334/2006
of Valiyathura Polcie Station which is now pending as
SC.No.641/2013 of Additional Sessions Court for the trial of
Cases Relating to Atrocities and Sexual Violence against Women
and Children, Thiruvananthapuram
Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed.
Sd/-
M.R.ANITHA
JUDGE
ska
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7158/2019
PETITIONER ANNEXURE
ANNEXURE I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED
30/04/2010 ALONG WITH FIR.
ANNEXURE II CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
19/12/2017 IN SC 1456/2017.
ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 16/08/2019.
