In a criminal revision filed before the Kerala High Court challenging an order dated 11-12-2018 by the Sessions Court, Alappuzha, whereby a prayer for discharge by the 5th accused was disallowed, a Single Judge Bench of Justice G. Girish affirmed the impugned order and dismissed the revision petition.
The petitioner was accused of committing offences under Sections 376 and 366A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Section 3(1)(xi), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The case was of rape committed on a Scheduled Caste girl below 16 years.
In August 2010, accused 1 to 3 took the minor girl from her home to the house of accused 7, who raped her. Thereafter, accused 1 to 3 took her to the house of accused 8, who also committed rape on her. The minor girl was then taken by accused 5 to a hotel room, where he also raped her. In September, the victim was subjected to sexual exploitation by accused 9, who outraged her modesty. In October, the minor girl was raped by accused 6, and accused 10 had also facilitated her sexual exploitation.
In a petition filed before the Sessions Judge, accused 5 contended that he had been falsely implicated in the case and that he had not been properly identified by the minor girl. However, the Sessions Judge held him liable to face trial.
The Court noticed the records and stated that there were specific allegations regarding the rape committed by the petitioner upon the minor girl in a hotel room. The Court said that the minor girl’s statement may have certain contradictions or inconsistencies, but stated that it was not possible to embark upon probability at the stage of framing of charges. It was stated that the trial court would decide whether the prosecution would succeed in establishing the charges levelled against the petitioner after meticulously analysing the evidence.
Further, the Court stated that the petitioner’s contention that he was not liable to be tried along with the other accused was unsustainable in view of Section 223(a) and (d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which provided for the joint trial of persons accused of the same offence and different offences committed in the course of the same transaction. The Court found nothing wrong with the order of the Sessions Judge rejecting the petitioner’s request to discharge him from criminal prosecution.
Thus, the revision petition was dismissed, and the Registry was directed to transmit the case record to the trial court for immediate commencement of the trial.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. S. Rajeev, Mr. K.K. Dheerendrakrishnan, Mr. D. Feroze
For Respondent – Mr. Jayakrishnan U (Public Prosecutor)
