VISHNU S Vs. STATE OF KERALA
LAWS(KER)-2025-1-14
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on January 20,2025

Vishnu S Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

RAHUL V. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
ANEESH V. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
DR. SUBHASH KASHINATH MAHAJAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
KHUMAN SINGH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
PRATHVI RAJ CHAUHAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SATENDER KUMAR ANTIL VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [REFERRED TO]
RAJACHANDRASEKHARAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This is an appeal filed under Sec. 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The challenge in this appeal is to the order dtd. 21/8/2024 in Crl.M.P No.483/2024 passed by the Court of the Special Judge for the trial of the offences under the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Nedumangad.
(2.)The appellant is the sole accused in Crime No.907/2024 of Peroorkkada Police Station. He is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Ss. 376, 376(2)(n), 354, 354A, 354B, 354C and 506 IPC, Sec. 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2006 and Sec. 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act').
The prosecution case

(3.)The appellant is not a member of a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. The victim is a member of a scheduled caste community. She is a B.Tech Graduate. She is living with her husband and daughter. The appellant is an Ayurvedic Physician. The victim got acquainted with the appellant through Facebook. They maintained contact with each other through social media. The victim is suffering from back pain. The appellant invited her to have a consultation at his clinic in Paripally. The victim was not in a position to travel. She showed her posterior to the appellant through a video call, following which the appellant suggested some Ayurvedic medicines. On 7/7/2023 at 1.00 p.m, the appellant arrived at the residence of the victim. She was alone there. The appellant threatened her that her video visuals in his possession would be shown to her husband and others. He entered the house and locked the front door even when the victim resisted. He had forceful sexual intercourse with her. In the incident, the victim sustained injuries on her breast. The appellant had recorded the incident on his mobile phone. The victim tried to delete the recordings from his mobile phone. But the appellant resisted it and threatened her. The appellant continued to maintain a sexual relationship with the victim by way of threat. On 5/1/2024 also, the appellant raped her. Later, she revealed this incident to her husband and preferred a complaint before the Police.


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