Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 711 (KER)

Kumaran S/o Kannankutty v. State of Kerala

2026-06-04

A Badharudeen

body2026
JUDGMENT : A. BADHARUDEEN, J. The sole accused in S.C. No.107/2012 on the files of the Special Court (for the trial of offences against children), Kozhikode, has filed this appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code [hereinafter referred as ‘Cr.P.C’, for short] challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge, against him as per the judgment dated 06.02.2016. The State of Kerala, represented by the Public Prosecutor is arrayed as the respondent herein. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the judgment under challenge and the records of the Special Court. 3. In this case, the final report filed alleging commission of the offence punishable under Sections 511 read with 376 of the Indian Penal Code [hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’ for short] by the appellant/accused. The learned Special Judge recorded evidence and completed trial. During trial, PWs 1 to 8 were examined and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked on the side of the prosecution. Even though, the accused was given opportunity to adduce defence evidence after questioning him under Section 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C., he did not opt to adduce any defence evidence. Finally, the trial court found, that the appellant/accused committed the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC. Accordingly, the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further term of three months. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused argued that the entire allegations are false and the allegations are raised with a view to implicate the appellant/accused in jail since there was a property dispute and a civil suit pending in between the parties, whereas the learned Public Prosecutor supported the verdict impugned. 5. In this case, the points arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the Special Court is justified in finding that the accused committed the offence under Section 354 of the IPC? 2. Whether the verdict of the Special Court would require interference? 3. Order to be passed? 6. Point Nos.1 to 3:- The prime witness deposed about the occurrence is none other than PW1, the victim. PW1 deposed that while she was studying in 9 th standard, at 5.30 hours on 25.07.2011, she went for washing her clothes in a pond nearby her house. 3. Order to be passed? 6. Point Nos.1 to 3:- The prime witness deposed about the occurrence is none other than PW1, the victim. PW1 deposed that while she was studying in 9 th standard, at 5.30 hours on 25.07.2011, she went for washing her clothes in a pond nearby her house. While she was engaged in washing her clothes, the accused reached there and caught on her hand and he removed his lungi and when the accused attempted to break the rope of her frock, she hit away his hand and ran away to her house and then informed the same to her father. Thereafter, police reached the place of occurrence and she made complaint to the police. During cross examination, some questions were asked to PW1, particularly to make the evidence of PW1 as incredible, with a view to establish that this case was foisted, since there was a property dispute in regard to a canal nearby their house, but PW1 categorically denied the same. 7. PW2 and PW3, are the father and mother of PW1, respectively and they also deposed in support of the prosecution and they also denied the dispute in between them and the accused. In fact, no evidence forth-coming to substantiate the defence canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused. 8. Apart from PW1 to PW3, PW4 to PW6 also supported the prosecution case. PW5, the Medical Officer also deposed in terms of the prosecution, supporting the potency examination of the appellant/accused, supported by Ext. P3 certificate suggesting that the appellant/accused is capable of performing sexual act. 9. On evaluating the evidence, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused are unsustainable and found to be untenable. On scanning the ingredients for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC prior to its amendment in the year 2011, they are; assault or criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty. The evidence of PW1 categorically proved the said ingredients. Therefore, the conviction is liable to be confirmed. 10. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused canvased reduction in the sentence imposed by the trial court. In fact, this is an occurrence in the year 2011, before the amendment of Section 354 of the IPC, by providing enhanced punishment which is not less than one year. Therefore, the conviction is liable to be confirmed. 10. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused canvased reduction in the sentence imposed by the trial court. In fact, this is an occurrence in the year 2011, before the amendment of Section 354 of the IPC, by providing enhanced punishment which is not less than one year. Before the amendment, the sentence provided is “either description of a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.” In this case, the appellant/accused already undergone the sentence of imprisonment for a period of one month as under trial prisoner. In consideration of the same, I am inclined to modify the sentence imposed by the trial court. 11. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part. The conviction imposed by the learned Special Judge for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC is confirmed and sentence stands modified as under:- The appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and also to pay a fine of Rs. 30,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC and in default of payment, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. If the fine amount will be paid or realised, Rs.20,000/- shall be given to PW1 as compensation, on issuing notice to her and making her appearance without fail. Since the jail sentence already undergone, on payment of fine, the sentence imposed against the appellant/accused will come to an end. Therefore, the appellant/accused is directed to surrender before the Special court concerned on 04.07.2026 to pay the fine amount. On failure to surrender and pay the fine amount on the date prescribed, the Special Judge is directed to execute the default sentence imposed on the appellant/accused and also proceed for realisation of the fine amount, in accordance with law. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Special Judge concerned for information and compliance.