ESAKKI MADAN NADAR AND NESAMONY NADAR Vs. STATE
LAWS(KER)-1955-9-14
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on September 13,1955

ESAKKI MADAN NADAR AND NESAMONY NADAR Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THE accused in C. C. No. 300 of 1953 of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's Court, Padmanabhapuram is the Revision Petitioner. He was convicted by that court of offences under Sections 448 and 354, I. P. C and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appeal filed by him in the Sessions Court of Nagercoil met with no success. Hence this Revision Petition.
(2.) P. W. 5 who is a mid-wife working in the Public Health Department was at the time of the alleged occurrence living with her husband and child in a rented building belonging to the accused. The building was also used as her office. P. W. 4 is her husband. The prosecution case is thus: On 28-7-1953 at about 8 A. M. when P. W. 4 had gone out with the child and P. W. 5 was cleaning vessels at the back-side of the house, the accused opened the front door and entered the house. When P. W. 5 came to the front room the accused asked her whether her husband was there and on being told that he was not there, the accused said that he had come to demand the rent of the building. P. W. 5 replied that he should get the rent from the Government. The accused then left the place and P. W. 5 resumed the work of cleaning the vessels. After a while the accused came from behind, put his hands around her and held both her hands with the intention of outraging her modesty. She cried out and hit the accused with the carbon-coated jug she had in her hands. The contents of the jug were spilt on the shirt of the accused. By this time P. W. 4 came in through the front door of the house and the accused then went away through the back door. P. W. 5 told her husband what happened. They prepared a petition Ex. B and presented it to the Sub-Inspector of Police at 12-15 P. M. The Sub-Inspector recorded the statement of P. W. 5 and after making the necessary investigation charge-sheeted the case.
(3.) THE accused pleaded not guilty. Six witnesses were examined for the prosecution including the Sub-Inspector of Police. P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 did not support the prosecution. P. W. 5 swore to the prosecution case in full and P. W. 4 deposed that he saw the accused stepping out of the house through the back door while he entered the house through the front door. The learned Magistrate believed P. Ws. 4 and 5 convicted the accused in the manner stated above. The learned Sessions Judge also accepted the evidence of P. Ws. 4 and 5 and confirmed the conviction and sentence.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.