The High Court of Kerala dismissed the criminal appeal challenging the conviction for rape and assault. The court held that prosecution evidence, including victim's condition and medical reports, was sufficient to establish guilt, noting the appellant had already undergone the sentence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 27TH ASHADHA, 1944
CRL.A NO. 478 OF 2017
SC 203/2016 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (SPECIAL),
KOTTAYAM
CP 30/2016 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
KANJIRAPPALLY
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
SREEDHARAN, C.NO.1752, CENTRAL PRISON, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 12.
BY ADV .SMT. VEENA HARI (STATE BRIEF)
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DGP HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
SMT. O.V.BINDU Public Prosecutor
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Appeal No.478 of 2017
..2..
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Court (Special), Kottayam (for short 'the court below') in S.C.No.203/2016 as per the judgment dated 29th March, 2017.
Crl.Appeal No.478 of 2017
..3..
was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 376(1) of the IPC and to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 354(b) of the IPC. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Crl.Appeal No.478 of 2017
vascular accident, she was not examined at the court below. The de facto complainant is the elder daughter of the victim. She was examined as PW1. She deposed that, on 12.4.2016 at 2 pm., while she was at the stitching centre near her house, her son came and informed that the accused went to their house. She further deposed that, then she rushed to the house, where she found there the accused sitting in the bed near to her mother. She also deposed that she found the accused disrobing her mother and holding the breast and private parts. According to her, she pushed him down and covered her mother with cloth.
Crl.Appeal No.478 of 2017
she thoroughly examined the victim and noted injuries between labia majora and minora on right side and also abrasion on the left side of her vagina.
The evidence of PW7 coupled with Ext.P5 supports the evidence given by PW1 and PW4 that the accused fingered the vagina of the victim. On re-appreciation of the evidence, I see no reason to disbelieve the version given by PWs.1, 4 and 7. It is a case where a lady, who was bedridden, was raped by the accused. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. That apart, as already stated, the accused has already undergone the sentence. There is no merit in this criminal appeal. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE
skj
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction of the appellant for rape and assault.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
SREEDHARAN
STATE OF KERALA
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
