Kerala High Court
Mohanan (C-2504) vs State Of Kerala on 25 June, 2025
2025:KER:45829
CRL.A NO. 816 OF 2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 4TH ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 816 OF 2022
CRIME NO.12/2013 OF Kundara Police Station, Kollam
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.04.2021 IN SC NO.18 OF 2017 OF
SPECIAL COURT FOR SC/ST (POA) ACT,1989,KOTTARAKKARA
CP NO.155 OF 2016 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,
KOLLAM
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
MOHANAN (C-4497), AGED 63 YEARS, S/O CHANDRAN,
CENTRAL PRISON, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM THROUGH THE
SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, POOJAPPURA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, WAS RESIDING AT CHIRAKKARA VEEDU,
SANAGAKKADA MUKKU, PULIYILA CHERRY, PALLIMON VILLAGE.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY DY. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION-691506
BY ADVS.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SMT.AMBIKA DEVI S, SPL.G.P. (ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN
AND CHILDREN AND WELFARE OF W AND C)
SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN A,SR.PP
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.06.2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:45829
CRL.A NO. 816 OF 2022 2
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed challenging the
conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused
in S.C.No.18 of 2017 on the file of the Special Court for
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act Cases, Kottarakkara. S.C.No.18 of 2017
arises out of Crime No.12 of 2013 of Kundara Police
Station, which was registered alleging commission of
offence punishable under Sections 376(l) of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 'SC/ST Act').
2. Following the trial of the case, the
appellant/accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for four years and was ordered to pay a fine of
Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for four months for the offence
punishable under Section 511 of Section 376(l) of the IPC.
He was also sentenced undergo rigorous imprisonment for
three years and ordered to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in
2025:KER:45829
default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months
for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the
SC/ST Act. The appellant/accused was acquitted for the
offence under Section 376(l) of the IPC.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/accused submits that even if the entire allegations
raised by the victim/de facto complainant were taken to be
true, the only offence that is stated to have been committed
by the appellant is the offence under Section 354 of the IPC.
It is submitted that there is a contradiction in the testimony
of PW1. It is submitted that the testimonies of PWs 1 and
10 are not believable. It is submitted that PW8 is not an
authorised officer to conduct the investigation in respect of
an offence committed under the SC/ST Act. It is submitted
that the trial court convicted and sentenced the
appellant/accused, for the offences referred to above, only
on account of the fact that the alleged victim is a deaf and
dumb person and she belongs to the weaker section of
society. It is submitted that there is no legal evidence to
convict the accused.
2025:KER:45829
4. Learned Public Prosecutor refers to paragraph
No.17 of the impugned judgment. He contends that the
evidence of PW10 (victim) is clear and concise and definitely
points to the guilt of the appellant/accused. It is submitted
that, going by the evidence available before the trial court,
the appellant/accused would have committed rape, had the
victim not managed to escape from the clutches of the
appellant/accused. It is submitted that, he was rightly
convicted for the offence under Section 511 of Section
376(l) of the IPC. It is submitted that, since the appellant is
not a member of any of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled
Tribes, he was also rightly convicted and sentenced under
the provisions of the SC/ST Act.
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of
the view that the appellant has not made out any case for
interfering with the conviction and sentence imposed on the
appellant. PW10(the victim) is a deaf and dump person. Her
testimony was taken by appointing an interpreter. The trial
court found that PW10 was competent to give evidence. The
2025:KER:45829
evidence of PW10 indicates that there was a clear attempt
to commit the offence under Section 376(l) of the IPC and
the appellant/accused did not actually commit rape on the
victim only because she had managed to escape from his
clutches.
6. PW2 deposed that he was a Director Board
Member of Puliyila Handloom Wavers Co-operative Society
and he was also holding the charge of Secretary of the
Society. Though he has given evidence to the effect that
both the appellant/accused and the victim were employed at
the Society, he gave evidence that he did not see the
appellant/accused running away from the scene and to this
extent, his evidence is hostile to the prosecution. However,
there is nothing in the deposition of PW2 which would come
to the aid of the appellant/accused. PW3 is the brother of
the victim. It is seen from the evidence of PW3 that,
immediately after the incident, the victim had informed him
through sign language that she had been subjected to sexual
assault. The evidence of PW6 also indicates that, during the
course of medical examination, PW10 had indicated to her
2025:KER:45829
that she had been subjected to sexual assault, but, there
was no penetration. PW12 deposed that she had conducted
potency test on the appellant/accused and issued Ext.P20
potency certificate, which indicates that there is nothing to
show that the appellant/accused was not capable of
performing a sexual act. The evidence of PW2 (though
hostile to the case of the prosecution), in some parts,
indicates that though PW10 had not revealed any incident of
sexual assault to him, both the appellant/accused and the
victim were present at the shed in question, at the time of
incident. This is, to some extent, corroborated by the
testimony of PW5 also. The contention of the learned
counsel appearing for the appellant/accused that PW8 did
not have the authority to investigate any offence under the
SC/ST Act also cannot be accepted as PW8 had been duly
authorised by PW11, who is an authorized officer.
7. Therefore, on a consideration of the evidence of
PWs1, 3 and 10, I find no reason to hold that there was no
evidence to convict the appellant/accused of the offences
under Section 511 of 376(l) IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the
2025:KER:45829
SC/ST Act. As already observed, the evidence of PW2,
though hostile to the prosecution in some part, also
supports the case of the prosecution and in fact, reveals
that, at the time of occurrence of the alleged incident, the
appellant/accused and PW10 were present in the same shed.
Therefore, I find no reason to overturn the conviction and
sentence imposed on the appellant/accused. The appeal will
therefore stand dismissed, confirming the conviction and
sentence imposed on the appellant/accused.
This Court records its appreciation for the learned
counsel for the appellant in appearing as State Brief for the
appellant/accused.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
ats/ajt
