Dismissed

Sujatha v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Jul 2018Crl.MC/3978/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a direction to constitute a special investigation team regarding alleged sexual abuse of her minor daughter. The High Court found the investigation thorough and evidence indicated the case might be false. The petitioner's application was dismissed, and the court directed the police to investigate the petitioner's potential liability under Section 22 of the POCSO Act.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; investigating officer directed to enquire into the petitioner's liability for prosecution under Section 22 of the POCSO Act.

Sujatha Vs State of Kerala — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2018 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1940

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3978 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 1884/2017 OF SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION , KOLLAM

¶7

PETITIONER:-

¶8

SUJATHA AGED 40 YEARS W/O.MADHU, THULLAKALATHIL HOUSE MUTHUVILAKADU PADINJATTETHIL MUTHUVILAKADAU P O

¶9

SHASTHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT (MOTHER OF THE VICTIM MINOR GIRL)

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ

¶11

SRI.P.T.SHEEJISH

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM 682 031

¶14

2. DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOLLAM RURAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 001

¶15

3. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DYSP OFFICE KOTTARAKKARA PIN 691 506

¶16

4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SHASTHAMKOTTA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT-690521

¶17

5. CBCID CRIME BRANCH, KOLLAM DIVISION KOLLAM DISTRICT-695002

¶18

6. AKHIL V KUTTAN, S/O.OMANAKUTTAN RESIDING AT ARUNALAYAM MUTHUVILAKADU PO SHASTHAMKOTTA KOLLAM DISTRICT-690 520

¶19

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR:SMT V SREEJA

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.07.2018, THE COURT ON 23.07.2018 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

Crl.MC.No. 3978 of 2018

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:

¶24

ANNEXURE A1 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1884 OF 2017 ANNEXURE A2 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT

¶25

ANNEXURE A3 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE 3^rd RESPONDENT BEFORE TEH 4^th RESPONDENT OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT

¶26

ANNEXURE A4 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2^nd RESPONDENT

¶27

ANNEXURE A5 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KERALA STATE COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES IN COMPLAINT NO.5356/B3/17/KLM/KSCSC & ST DATED 18.11.2017

¶28

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL

¶29

True Copy / P A to Judge

¶30

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶31

=================

¶32

Crl.M.C.No.3978 of 2018

¶33

=================

¶34

Dated this the 23^rd day of July, 2018

¶35

ORDER

¶36

Petitioner, who is the defacto complainant in Crime No.1884 of 2017 of Sasthamcotta Police Station in Kollam district for offences punishable under sections 451, 506(i), 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act 2012 and section 3(1)(w)(i) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (Amendment 2015) has moved this Court for a direction to the investigating agency to direct the second respondent to constitute a special team for investigation into the above crime or to entrust the investigation to a senior police officer of the Crime Branch. The grievance of the petitioner herein is that, the police is not effectively investigating the case.

¶37

The crux of the prosecution case is that, on 20.09.2017 at 11 a.m., accused trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and caught hold of 16 year old daughter of the defacto complainant, while she was alone in the house. FI statement was laid on 23.09.2017 and investigation is progressing. According to the petitioner herein, though crime was registered, effective

¶38

¶39

Crl.M.C.3978/18

¶40

investigation is not being conducted.

¶41

The case diary was made available by the learned Public Prosecutor. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who vehemently argued for a direction to constitute a special team for investigation. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.

¶42

It appears that, pursuant to the investigation, statements of the defacto complainant, victim, neighbours and the teachers to whom the victim allegedly disclosed the details were recorded. It seems that, though the victim is stated to have disclosed the incident to the teachers, inspite of repeated questioning regarding the identity, she conspicuously did not reveal the name of the accused who was her neighbour and known to her. She revealed the name of the accused two days thereafter. Extensive investigation conducted by the investigation team seems to have revealed that the accused was at Karunagappally, far away from the alleged place of incident at Sasthamcotta on that day, during the relevant time. Statement of neighbours who had seen the accused leaving the house on that day early morning and who had seen him in a shop at Karunagappally have been recorded. The telephone records and the CDR details show that the accused was within the limits of Karunagappally tower location from around 8 a.m. till

¶43

Crl.M.C.3978/18

¶44

¶45

evening. It is reported that, he was employed in a shop there. CC T.V footage's from a camera installed in an establishment near the shop was also checked by the police. It reveals that, much before the alleged time of incident, accused was seen entering the shop and he left the shop in the evening. The version of the various witnesses show that, he was engaged in the shop on the relevant day. The neighbours of the accused and victim, had informed that the accused was not there, during the relevant time on that day.

¶46

It is also pertinent to note that regarding the circumstances in which the incident happened, the details of incident, the dress of the assailant, the physical features etc, the victim has given varied versions in her initial statement, further statement and section 164 Cr.P.C statement. Regarding the reason for non disclosure of accused initially also, she has given different reasons.

¶47

It is also revealed that, another crime was registered as Crime No.2140 of 2017 by Sasthamcotta police on a subsequent complaint dated 28.10.2017 of the victim alleging that on a specified day, about one year prior to the complaint, same accused had given a toffee mixed with sedative to her and committed rape of her. The matter is under investigation. It is reported by the police

¶48

Crl.M.C.3978/18

¶49

¶50

that on a verification of the passport and the travel documents of the accused, it was revealed that, he was working in Dubai during the relevant time. It is also revealed in the course of investigation that the family members of the victim were not maintaining very cordial relationship with the accused and his family. After investigation, police seems to have decided to file a final report to refer the present case as false.

¶51

Faced with the materials gathered against the defacto complainant and victim, the learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly requested for withdrawing the Crl.M.C. Considering the serious nature of allegation, that prayer was declined.

¶52

The entire materials prima facie show that the investigation was proceeding fairly. It seems that, there is absolutely no evidence to substantiate the case of the petitioner; on the other hand, materials falsify her case.

¶53

The allegation of sexual abuse of child is a matter of very serious concern and one affecting public conscience. POCSO Act provides for very deterrent punishment to the guilty. Hence, a false case of sexual abuse on a child has also to be treated very seriously and any attempt to implicate a person falsely in an offence under the provisions of POCSO Act has also to be seriously dealt with.

¶54

Crl.M.C.3978/18

¶55

¶56

Any attempt to misuse the provisions of POCSO Act to settle scores with the opponent need to be nipped in the bud. Legislature in its wisdom has incorporated section 22 in POCSO Act to meet such eventualities. I am satisfied that, this is a case in which invocation of section 22 is liable to be considered.

¶57

In the result, Crl.M.C is dismissed. It is directed that, investigating officer shall also enquire whether the petitioner herein is liable for prosecution under section 22 of the POCSO Act and if so, investigating officer shall take necessary steps in accordance

¶58

with law.

¶59

Sd/-

¶60

SUNIL THOMAS Judge

¶61

Sbna/

¶62

True Copy / P A to Judge

Sujatha v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujatha v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babu Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Anzil Vs State of Kerala

Prasannachandran Vs K.N. Vijayamma

Rajeev Thomas Vs Sheeja Antony

Binoy Vs State of Kerala

Sadique Vs State of Kerala