VETTIKUZHIYIL JAISON ALIAS JOSE Vs. STATE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
LAWS(KER)-2003-2-65
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on February 17,2003

VETTIKUZHIYIL JAISON Appellant
VERSUS
STATE, (CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE) Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This revision is directed against the judgment dated 17th January, 2000 of the Sessions Judge, Thalasserry, in Crl. A. No. 340/99. The revision petitioner was charged with the offences punishable under S.376 and S.452 of the Indian Penal Code. After the trial, the Additional Sessions Judge, Thalasserry found the petitioner guilty of the offences and convicted him. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- for the offence under S.376 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under S.452 of the IPC. In default to pay the fine he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year and six months each under respective head. The fine, if remitted, is ordered to be paid to PW 1 Valsamma, the victim of the alleged rape, as compensation. Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, the petitioner preferred Crl. A. 340/99 and the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment confirmed the conviction and sentence. Hence this revision.
(2.) The prosecution story runs in the following lines : PW 1, Valsamma and the accused Jaison alias Jose were neighbours. On 26-8-1995 at about 5 p.m. while PW 1 was alone in her house, the accused sneaked into the kitchen, took her to the bed room and committed rape on her. It is also alleged that on the subsequent two Saturdays the petitioner had forcible intercourse with PW 1. PW 3, the mother of PW 1 had sent PW 1 with PW 2 to PW 5, Dr. Syamala on 9-12-1995 for treatment of scables on her legs. Dr. Syamala examined PW 1 and diagnosed that she was pregnant. When questioned, PW 1 is said to have disclosed to PW 3 that she was subjected to sexual assault by the accused. Though there was an attempt to compromise the matter, the attempt failed and PW 3 sought the advise of an Advocate and lodged a complaint before the Circle Inspector of Police, Iritty. He forwarded the complaint to Karikkottakari Police Station. PW 9 the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Karikkottakari registered the crime and investigated the same. PW 10, the Circle Inspector of Police completed the investigation and laid the charge before the Court.
(3.) The accused denied the charge. In order to prove the guilt of the accused PWs. 1 to 10 were examined and Exts. P1 to P9 were marked.;


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