Kerala High Court
Krishnan vs The State Of Kerala on 20 May, 2025
2025:KER:34627
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 253 OF 2016
IN SC NO.4/2013 OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT - I,
KALPETTA
APPELLANT/SOLE ACCUSED:
KRISHNAN,
AGED 63 YEARS,
S/O.MATHAN, KARYAMBATHI HOUSE, OORALI
COLONY,KALANADIKOLLY, NADAVAYAL AMSOM.
BY ADV SRI.K.R.SUNIL
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KENICHIRA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
SRI. VIPIN NARAYAN, SR.PP
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A NO. 253 OF 2016
2
2025:KER:34627
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed challenging the conviction and
sentence imposed on the appellant in S.C.No.4/2013 on the file of
the Additional Sessions Court - I, Kalpetta. S.C.No.4/2013 arises
out of Crime No.128/2012 registered by the Sub Inspector of Police,
Kenichira Police Station alleging commission of offences under
Sections 341, 342, 354, 323 and 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code
(IPC) and Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection)
Act 2000. The allegation leading to the registration of Crime
No.128/2012 is that on 17.05.2012 at about 09.30 A.M in the
morning, the appellant due to his enmity towards PW2 (a girl aged
16 at the relevant time)had wrongfully confined her in the premises
of his house bearing door No.XIII/398, Basavankally, Oorali
Colony, Pulpally Grama Panchayat, voluntarily caused hurt to her
and had caught hold of her hands with an intend to outrage her
modesty and uttered obscene words and thereby he committed the
offences alleged against him.
2. The trial court convicted the appellant for the
offences under Sections 341, 342, 354, 323 and 294(b) of the IPC
CRL.A NO. 253 OF 2016
2025:KER:34627
but acquitted the appellant of the offence alleged under the
provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2000. On conviction for the offences referred to above, the
appellant was sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months
and a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 342 of the
IPC, to simple imprisonment for six months and to a fine of
Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC, to simple
imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.5,000/- for
the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and to
simple imprisonment for two months and a fine of Rs.1,000/- for
the offence under Section 294(b) of the IPC. No separate sentence
was awarded for the offence punishable under Section 341 of the
IPC in the light of the provisions contained in Section 71 of the IPC.
The substantive sentences were to run concurrently. The learned
trial Judge also directed that the period from 19.05.2012 to
02.06.2012 (during which period the appellant had undergone
judicial custody) will be set-off under Section 428 of the Cr.P.C.
3. Sri.K.R.Sunil, the learned counsel appearing for
the appellant submits that the appellant and PW2 (the victim)
belong to two different Scheduled Tribe communities. It is
CRL.A NO. 253 OF 2016
2025:KER:34627
submitted that while the appellant belongs to the 'Oorali'
community, the victim belongs to 'Kattunayakan' community. It is
submitted that even going by the statement of PW2 in the box, the
appellant had accosted her on the allegation that a "bandarapetty"
(offering chest normally placed in front of a deity) had been taken
away by the victim. It is submitted that even if all the allegations
raised are accepted as true, the appellant could not have been found
guilty of the offence under Section 354 of the IPC. It is submitted
that the First Information Statement of the victim, which was
recorded by PW7 indicates that there were absolutely no injuries
commensurate with the allegations. It is submitted that this is also
confirmed by the evidence tendered by PW9, Assistant Surgeon,
Community Health Center, Pulpally. Therefore, it is submitted that
the offence alleged under Sections 341, 342 and 323 of the IPC
cannot be sustained. It is submitted that the conviction for the
offence under Section 294(b) of the IPC also cannot be sustained as
the evidence of PW2 (the victim) does not even indicate as to the
abusive, humiliating or defamatory words that were allegedly used
by the appellant. It is submitted that the conviction under Section
294(b) of the IPC is solely on the statement of PW3 (the younger
CRL.A NO. 253 OF 2016
2025:KER:34627
sister of the victim). It is submitted that in the absence of any
specific statement from the victim regarding the words, if any, used
by the appellant, the finding that an offence under Section 294(b)
of the IPC has been committed cannot be sustained. The learned
counsel has taken the court through the depositions of PW2, PW3,
PW7 and PW9 in support of his contentions.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor has referred to the
judgment of the trial court as also to the depositions of PWs 2 and 3
to substantiate that the offences alleged have been committed by
the appellant. It is submitted that the evidence in the case is
sufficient to support the conviction for the offences under Section
341, 342, 323 and 354 of the IPC. However, the learned Public
Prosecutor very fairly admits that the evidence of PW2 does not
indicate any abusive, humiliating or defamatory words that had
been used by the appellant in order to attract the offence under
Section 294(b) of the IPC.
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and having perused
the records and the depositions of PWs 2, 3, 7 and 9, I am of the
view that while the conviction under Sections 341, 342 and 323 of
CRL.A NO. 253 OF 2016
2025:KER:34627
the IPC can be sustained, there is absolutely no evidence that could
lead to the conclusion that the appellant had committed the
offences under Section 354 and 294(b) of the IPC. The reasons
which lead me to this conclusion are as follows:
Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code reads thus:-
"354. Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to
outrage her modesty.--Whoever assaults or uses criminal
force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to
be likely that he will there by outrage her modesty, [shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which shall not be less than one year but which may
extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine]."
It is clear from a reading of the provisions of Section 354 of the IPC
that in order to constitute an offence under Section 354 of the IPC,
there must be an assault or use of criminal force to a woman with
an intent to outrage her modesty. The Chief Examination of PW2
(the victim) in its entirety is extracted below:-
"ഞാൻ കരിയംപാതിക്കുന്ന് എന്ന സ്ഥലത്തു
താമസിക്കുന്നു.എന്റെ വീട്ടിൽ എന്റെ അച്ഛനും, അനിയത്തിയും
അനുജനും ഉണ്ട്.എന്റെ അമ്മ മരണപ്പെട്ടു.എന്റെ ജനന
തീയതി 28/5/1995 ആണ്. ഈ കേസിലെ പ്രതി എന്റെ
CRL.A NO. 253 OF 2016
2025:KER:34627
അയൽവാസിയാണ്. ഞങ്ങൾ കാട്ടുനായ്ക്കൻ
സമുദായത്തിൽപെടുന്നവരാണ്. ഇടയ്ക്ക് ഞാൻ ജാനകി
അമ്മായിയോടൊപ്പം താമസിക്കാറുണ്ട്. ടി ജാനകി എന്റെ
വീടിന് സമീപം ആണ് (next page)താമസിക്കുന്നത്. 17/5/2012
ന് രാവിലെ 9 ന് ഞാനും, CW 2 and 3 യോടൊപ്പം വിറകു
പെറുക്കാൻ പോയി .അപ്പോൾ അവിടെ പ്രതി വന്നു. അയാൾ
എന്റെ മുടിക്കു ത്തിൽ ചുറ്റിപ്പിടിച്ചു. "നീ ഭണ്ഡാര പെട്ടി
എടുത്തോ" എന്നു ചോദിച്ചു കൊണ്ട് എന്റെ മുഖത്തിന്റെ
ഇടതുവശത്ത് അടിച്ചു. അടികൊണ്ട് ഞാൻ കരഞ്ഞു. പ്രതി
എന്റെ കൈയിലും പിടിച്ച് വലിച്ച് പ്രതിയുടെ വീട്ടിലേക്ക്
കൊണ്ടുപോയി. സംഭവദിവസം പ്രതിയുടെ വീട്ടിൽ അയാളുടെ
ഭാര്യയും, മരുമകളും മാത്രമേ ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നുള്ളൂ. പ്രതി ടിയാന്റെ
വീട്ടിൽ വെച്ച് എന്നെ വീണ്ടും അടിച്ചു. അതിനുശേഷം എന്റെ
കൈകാലുകൾ ജനലിൽ കെട്ടിയിട്ടു. അതിനുശേഷം പ്രതി
വാതിൽ പൂട്ടി പുറത്തുപോയി. പ്രതിയുടെ ഭാര്യ എനിക്ക് വെള്ളം
കുടിക്കാൻ തന്നു.(2nd page) ഞാൻ പ്രതിയുടെ കെട്ടഴിച്ച്
പുറത്തു വന്നു.അപ്പോൾ പകൽ 1 മണിയായി കാണും.
അപ്പോൾ അവിടെ എന്റെ അച്ഛൻ (CW7) തെണ്ടുക്കൻ
അമ്മാവൻ എന്നിവർ ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നു. ടി സംഭവം CWs 2 and 3
കണ്ടിരുന്നു. എന്റെ അച്ഛനും ടി അമ്മാവനും ചേർന്ന് എന്നെ
പുൽപ്പള്ളി ആശുപത്രിയിൽ എത്തിച്ചു. എനിക്ക് കൈകൾക്കും
മുഖത്തിനും പരിക്കുണ്ടായിരുന്നു. എനിക്ക് മുഖത്തും
കൈകൾക്കും വേദന ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നു. പ്രതിയുടെ കാവിലെ
CRL.A NO. 253 OF 2016
2025:KER:34627
ഭണ്ഡാരപെട്ടി ഞാൻ കവർന്നെടുത്തു എന്നു പറഞ്ഞാണ്
എന്നെ അടിച്ചത്. Police ൽ ഞാൻ എന്റെ മൊഴി നൽകി. FIS
ൽ എന്റെ ഒപ്പുണ്ട് it is marked as Ext.P2). Police ൽ നിന്ന്
വന്നിരുന്ന പ്രതി ഇപ്പോൾ കോടതിയിൽ ഹാജരാണ്."
Even if the entire statement of the victim is taken as the truth, there
is nothing which indicates that the appellant had done anything
with the intention to outrage the modesty of the victim in order to
attract an offence under section 354 of the IPC. On this short
ground, I am of the view that the conviction of the appellant for the
offence under section 354 of the IPC cannot be sustained.
6. Coming to the conviction for the offence under
Section 294(b) of the IPC, it is evident from a reading of the
deposition of PW2 that she has not stated anything regarding any
song, ballads or words uttered by the appellant to lead to a
conclusion that the appellant had committed the offence under
Section 294(b) of the IPC. Though PW3 has stated that the
appellant used a word which may lead to the conclusion that he had
committed the offence under Section 294(b) of the IPC, in the
complete absence of any such allegation in the examination-in-chief
of PW2, I am clear in my mind that the conviction of the appellant
for the offence under Section 294(b) of the IPC also cannot be
CRL.A NO. 253 OF 2016
2025:KER:34627
sustained.
7. Coming to the commission of offences under
Sections 341, 342 and 323 of the IPC, there is evidence to suggest
that the appellant had assaulted the victim and had also illegally
confined her on the allegation that she had taken away the offering
box kept in front of a 'Kavu'. The absence of injury does not lead to
the conclusion that the appellant had not committed the offences
alleged under Sections 341, 342 and 323 of the IPC. Therefore, I
am of the view that the conviction of the appellant for the offences
under Sections 341, 342 and 323 of the IPC can be sustained.
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part. The conviction
and consequently the sentence imposed on the appellant for the
offences under Sections 354 and 294(b) of the IPC will stand set
aside. The conviction of the appellant for the offences under
Sections 341, 342 and 323 of the IPC is sustained. However, in
modification of the sentence imposed by the trial court, the
appellant is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of Court for
the offences under Sections 341, 342 and 323 of the IPC. I am also
of the view that, taking into consideration the provisions of Section
357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (corresponding to Section
CRL.A NO. 253 OF 2016
2025:KER:34627
395 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)), the
appellant can be directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees
ten thousand only) as compensation to the victim (PW2) within a
period of one month from today (20.05.2025) by depositing the
said amount in court. In default, the appellant shall undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The appellant
shall appear before the trial court at 11.00 A.M on
23.06.2025 in order to suffer the sentence imposed on him and also
to pay the compensation amount. The Registry shall forthwith
transmit the Trial Court Records to the Additional Sessions Court-I,
Kalpetta.
The Criminal Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
DK
