Decided on April 05,1968



- (1.) THESE appeals arise out of two Sessions cases disposed of by the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Kasargod. The Assistant Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents, each of whom was the accuaed person in each of the Sessions cases. The charge against them was that they committed rape on Pw. I (Narayani) aged fourteen on 25th June 1966 at about 5,80 p. m. one after the other at the house of the respondent in the second of these appeals (Kunhikannan alias Kannan Nair ). The case was that Pw. 1, a dhobi girl, took washed clothes to the house of Kannan Nair, while the respondent in the first of these appeals (Govindan alias Govindan Hair) was also present; that they took the girl foroibly inside the house of Kannan Nair and laid her on a gunny spread on the ground; and that they committed rape on her one after the other. Pw. 1 returned home weeping; but did not disclose the incident to her mother, Pw. 2. She became unwell; and her mother Bulleting something wrong with the daughter, persistently questioned her. The girl ultimately disclosed the incident to her mother on 27th June; and the mother took the girl to the police station and the latter gave a com. plaint to the police (Ex. P-1) on 23th June.
(2.) THE respondents denied the offence; and Govindan Nair said further that he gave Rs. 2/-to Pw. 1 for purchasing rice and she promised to give him sugar for the amount; that she failed to return the money or to give sugar; that he questioned her at the market place regarding the matter and a small crowd collected there: and the on this score Pw. 1 bore enmity towards him. Kannan Nair did not allege any enmity on the part of Pw. 1. I may also mention that neither of the respondents alleged any enmity towards them on the part of Pw. 2.
(3.) THE Assistant Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents giving them the benefit of doubt. The main reasoning of the Assistant Sessions Judge is that the evidence of the prosecutrix in a rape case (P. W. 1 in these cases) cannot be believed unless it is corroborated in material particulars. The Assistant Sessions Judge also says that P. W. 1 had no case at the stage of the complaint that there was penetration and that the case of penetration was an afterthought. Again, he points out some discrepancies in the evidence of P. W. 1, which also have assisted him in reaching the aforesaid conclusion.;

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