Kerala High Court
Xxxxxx vs State Of Kerala on 10 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
Wednesday, the 10th day of August 2022 / 19th Sravana, 1944
CRL.M.APPL.NO.1/2022 IN CRL.A NO. 795 OF 2022
S.C.No.548 of 2016 of the Special Court for the Fast Track Special Court, Tirur,
(Manjeri Sessions Division)
PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
XXXXXXXX
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682031
Application praying that in the circumstances stated therein the
High Court be pleased to suspend the execution of sentence passed against
petitioner in S.C.No.548 of 2016 of the Special Court for the Fast Track
Special Judge, Tirur, (Manjeri Sessions Division), and enlarge them on
bail, pending disposal of the above appeal.
This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
and upon hearing the arguments of M/S K.P.SUDHEER, J.RAMKUMAR, Advocates
for the petitioner and of the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the respondent, the
court passed the following:
p.t.o
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J.
-------------------------------------------------------
Crl. M A No. 1 of 2022
in
Crl. Appeal No. 795 of 2022
---------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of August 2022
ORDER
This is an application to suspend the execution of the
sentence.
2. The petitioner is the accused in S.C No. 548/2016 on
the file of the Special Fast Track Court, Tirur. He was
convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 10 r/w
9(n) of the POCSO Act and Sections 354(A)(2) r/w 354 (A)(1)
(i) of IPC and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act.
3. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of
Rs.20,000/-, for the offence punishable under Section 10 r/w
9(n) of the POCSO Act, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
a period two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, for the
offence punishable under Section 354(A)(2) r/w 354(A)(1)(i)
Crl.M.Appln.No 1 of 2022
in Crl.Appeal No 795 of 2022
of the IPC, and he is further sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under 75 of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.
4. I have heard Sri. K P Sudheer, the learned counsel for
the petitioner and Smt. Bindu, the learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent. The learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the
application. A detailed objection statement also has been filed.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
conviction is based on the sole testimony of the victim and that
there is a delay of four days in lodging the FIR. The learned
counsel further submits that the mother of the victim turned hostile
and that a false case has been foisted on account of the animosity
between the appellant and his brother-in-law.
6. I went through the judgment. This is a case where a
fifteen year old girl was sexually assaulted by her own father. It
appears that even the mother by turning hostile to the prosecution
supported the heinous act of the father. In a case of sexual assault,
Crl.M.Appln.No 1 of 2022
in Crl.Appeal No 795 of 2022
it is settled that the conviction can be based on the sole testimony
of the victim, if it is reliable. There is no reason for a minor girl to
speak against her own father. The Court below after evaluating the
entire evidence found that the prosecution has succeeded in
proving the case beyond reasonable doubt. Considering the
grievous nature of the offence committed by the petitioner that too
against his own daughter, I am not inclined to suspend the
execution of the sentence.
Accordingly, the Crl.M.A is dismissed.
Sd/-
DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH,
JUDGE
RMV
10-08-2022 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
