Crl.Appeal No.582 of 2020 1 2025:KER:26497 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1947 CRL.A NO. 582 OF 2020 CRIME NO.211/2011 OF ARALAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31/01/2019 IN SC NO.89 OF 2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SPECIAL COURT UNDER POCSO ACT, KANNUR. APPELLANT/ACCUSED: REGHUNATHAN P.P, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN, PUTHIYAPURAYIL HOUSE, CHAKKAD, VILAKKOD, KANNUR. BY ADV T.U.SUJITH KUMAR RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031. SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.03.2025, THE COURT ON 28.03.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.Appeal No.582 of 2020 2 2025:KER:26497 C.S.SUDHA, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.Appeal No.582 of 2020 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of March 2025 J U D G M E N T In this appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., the appellant, the sole accused in S.C.No.89/2013 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for the trial of offences against Women and Children, Thalassery, challenges the conviction entered and sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 511 of 376 IPC. 2. The accused is the father of PW9, the victim. The prosecution case is that while the accused and PW9 were residing together at their house at the place by name Keecheri, on 12/02/2011 at 02:00 a.m., while PW9 was sleeping in the hall room of the house along with her sister, the accused with the intention of committing rape, lifted her skirt, removed her panties Crl.Appeal No.582 of 2020 3 2025:KER:26497 and got on top of her, thereby attempting to commit rape on the victim. Hence, the accused as per the final report/charge sheet is alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 511 of 376 IPC. 3. Crime No.211/2011, Aralam police station, that is, Ext.P8 FIR was registered by PW8, the then Sub Inspector, based on Ext.P1 FIS of PW1, the mother of PW9, the victim girl. Initially, the investigation was conducted by PW11, the then Circle Inspector, Iritty. Thereafter the investigation was conducted by PW12, Circle Inspector, Iritty, who on completion of investigation submitted the final report/charge sheet alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 511 of 376 IPC. 4. On appearance of the accused, the jurisdictional magistrate after complying with all the necessary formalities contemplated under Section 209 Cr.P.C. committed the case to the Court of Session, Thalassery. The case was taken on file as S.C.No.89/2013 and made over to the Additional Sessions Judge Crl.Appeal No.582 of 2020 4 2025:KER:26497 -I, Thalassery, the designated court for the trial of offences against Women and Children, Thalassery, for trial and disposal. When the accused appeared before the trial court, a charge under Section 511 of 376 was framed, read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty. 5. On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW12 were examined and Exts.P1 to P10 were marked in support of the case. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution. The accused denied all those circumstances and maintained his innocence. 6. As the trial court did not find it a fit case to acquit the accused under Section 232 Cr.P.C., he was asked to enter on his defence and adduce evidence in support thereof. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. 7. On consideration of the oral and documentary Crl.Appeal No.582 of 2020 5 2025:KER:26497 evidence and after hearing both sides, the trial court by the impugned judgment found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 511 of 376 IPC and hence sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to fine of ₹50,000/- and in default to rigorous imprisonment for one year. Set off for the period from 10/10/2011 to 17/01/2012 has been granted under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The fine amount, if realised, has been directed to be paid as compensation to PW9 under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C. Aggrieved, the accused has come up in appeal. 8. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the conviction entered and sentence passed against the appellant/accused by the trial court are sustainable or not. 9. I make a brief reference to the evidence relied on by the prosecution in support of the case. PW9, the victim deposed that the incident took place on 11/02/2011 while she was studying in the Xth standard. PW9, along with her younger sister Crl.Appeal No.582 of 2020 6 2025:KER:26497 were sleeping in the central hall of their house. PW1, her mother and her father, the accused, were sleeping in the bed room of the house. PW10 her grandmother and her younger brother were sleeping in another room. Her younger sister was sleeping on the cot, while she was sleeping under the cot. At about 02:00 a.m. PW9 felt somebody removing her panties. Realising that it was the accused, she kicked him. The accused tried to spread her legs at which time she cried. The accused covered her mouth. She then bit the hands of the accused. The accused got on top of her. PW1, her mother came to the hall room and switched on the light. Her mother pushed away the accused. PW9 further deposed that on earlier occasions also, the accused had behaved inappropriately with her, at which time quarrels had taken place between her mother and the accused. The next day morning, the accused left their house and never returned. Ext.P1 FIS was given on 08/08/2011. Initially, her mother was reluctant to give a complaint to the police as she feared that it would be difficult to get her daughters married off. PW9 also deposed that her date of Crl.Appeal No.582 of 2020 7 2025:KER:26497 birth is 25/05/1995. 9.1. PW1, the mother of PW9 deposed that she along with family were residing at the place by name Aralam, Keecheri. The incident took place on 11/02/2011, at which time, PW9 her daughter aged 16 years, was a student of class X. On 11/02/2011 during the course of the night, she along with the accused, her husband, were sleeping in one room. PW10 her mother and her son were sleeping in another room. PW9 along with her another daughter were sleeping in the hall room. PW9 was sleeping under the cot and her sister on the cot. PW1 woke up at about 02:00 a.m. hearing the cries of PW9. She went to the hall room and switched on the light, at which time she saw her husband who was nude, moving away from the body of PW9. The skirt of PW9 was seen raised and her panties pulled down. She helped her daughter get up. PW9 told her that the accused had tried to abuse her. When she questioned her husband, he stated that he was only trying to cover PW9 with a shawl. The accused then manhandled PW1. On earlier occasions also, her daughter had complained Crl.Appeal No.582 of 2020 8 2025:KER:26497 that the accused had behaved inappropriately with the former. PW1 had questioned her husband about the same then also. Her husband left the house the next morning after the incident and never returned. She has come to know that he is residing with another lady named Sumati. She gave Ext.P1 complaint to the police. Delay was caused in giving the complaint as she was anxious about the future of PW9. 9.2. PW10, the mother of PW1 and grandmother of PW9 deposed that incident took place on a day in the month of February 2011. She along with her grandson were sleeping in one of the rooms in the house. At about 02:00 a.m. she woke up hearing some sound. She saw PW9 sitting on a mat and PW1 trying to arrange the dress of PW9 properly. The accused was standing by the side. The accused manhandled PW1 and left the house. She was informed by PW9 that the accused had pulled up her skirt and removed her panties. 9.3. PW4, Assistant Surgeon, Taluk Hospital, Peravoor, deposed that she had examined the victim on Crl.Appeal No.582 of 2020 9 2025:KER:26497 24/09/2011 at 12:35 p.m. and issued Ext.P4 certificate. No external injuries were noted. Hymen was found intact. 10. On going through the testimony of PW9 coupled with the testimony of PW1 and PW10, her mother and grandmother respectively, I find no reasons to disbelieve her. Nothing has been brought out to discredit the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses. No materials have been brought in to show that there was even a possibility of false implication of the accused, who is none other than the father of PW9, the victim, and husband of PW1. It is true that there was some delay in PW1 giving the complaint to the police. However, the delay has been explained by PW1 in the FIS as well as in her testimony. PW1 in the chief examination itself deposed that initially she did not disclose the incident to others keeping in mind the future of her daughter. PW9 also deposed that initially her mother was not prepared to give a complaint saying that it would be difficult for her to marry off her daughters if the incident came to light. As pointed out by the trial court, this was a reasonable apprehension Crl.Appeal No.582 of 2020 10 2025:KER:26497 in the mind of PW1, a mother of two daughters. The incident involves the commission of sexual abuse of one of her daughters by the father. That being the situation, the apprehension of PW1 was justified and it was only natural for the mother not to have disclosed the incident immediately to others. She further deposed that after the incident, the accused started spreading canards about her as well as her daughters and it was then she had decided to set the law in motion by giving a complaint to the police. This is a plausible explanation that has been furnished by PW1. Hence I find no reasons to disbelieve the prosecution case of attempt of rape of PW9 by the appellant/accused. 11. Now coming to the sentence that has been imposed on the accused. As noticed earlier, the trial court has sentenced the appellant/accused to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to a fine of ₹50,000/-. The fact that the accused is the father of PW9, the victim, makes the crime all the more grave and hence I find no reasons at all to modify or bring down the term of the substantive sentence. Crl.Appeal No.582 of 2020 11 2025:KER:26497 In the result, the appeal sans merit is thus dismissed. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. Sd/- C.S.SUDHA JUDGE Jms