IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1939

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1554 of 2003

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 217/2000 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (SPL),
KOTTAYAM
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 55/1998 of ASST. SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED(S)

VIJAYAN, S/O.GOPI, PERAMBRA HOUSE,
ARPOOKKARA KARA, ARPOOKKARA VILLAGE,
KOTTAYAM.

BY ADVS.SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY
SRI.K.R.SURENDRAN

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM.

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M. KAMMAPPU

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
26-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ma

P.UBAID, J.
~~~~~~~~~~
Crl.R.P No.1554 of 2003
~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 26th February, 2018

ORDER

The revision petitioner herein challenges the

conviction and sentence against him under Section 354

I.P.C in S.C 55/1998 of the Court of Session, Kottayam. He

faced prosecution before the learned Assistant Sessions

Judge, Kottayam, on the allegation that at about 8.30 a.m

on 13.9.1996, at his Barber shop, he outraged the modesty

of a small girl aged 8 years who had come to cut her hair

and he also made an attempt to commit rape on her.

2. The accused appeared before the learned trial

Judge and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against

him under Section 376 read with Section 511 I.P.C. The

prosecution examined 11 witnesses including the victim of

offence and proved Exts.P1 to P10 documents. The MO1

property was also identified during trial. The accused

denied the incriminating circumstances when examined

under Section 313 Cr.P.C and projected a defence that this

is a false case foisted against him due to the enmity by the

victim’s father. He also examined a witness on his side as
Crl.R.P No.1554 of 2003
2

DW1.

3. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court

found the accused guilty only under Section 354 I.P.C and

found that this is a not a case of attempted rape. On

conviction, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for six months under Section 354 I.P.C.

4. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated

26.7.2000, the accused approached the Court of Session

Kottayam with Crl.A.217/2000. In appeal, the learned

Special Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam confirmed the

conviction and sentence, and accordingly dismissed the

appeal. Now the accused is before this court in revision,

challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and

sentence.

5. On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the

materials, I find no reason for interference in the findings

and the conviction made by the courts below concurrently

under Section 354 I.P.C. Though the prosecution brought

final report under Section 376 I.P.C read with Section 511

I.P.C, both the courts below found only a case of outrage of
Crl.R.P No.1554 of 2003
3

modesty punishable under Section 354 I.P.C. PW1 is the

victim of offence, and PW2 and PW3 are her parents. PW2

has only hearsay information about the incident, but the

evidence of PW3, the mother is that when she found the

girl weeping, she asked what happened to her and then she

told her that the accused had behaved indecently to her at

the barber shop. The details of the indecent behaviour are

not seen disclosed by the mother.

6. PW1, the victim has explained what actually

happened at the hands of the accused at his barber shop.

The girl stated in evidence that when she came at the

barber shop of the accused, there was nobody else there

and after cutting the hair, the accused pressed on her

breast and fondled her private parts. When she started

weeping, she was allowed to go by the accused. She came

home and revealed everything to the mother. When the

father returned after the day’s work in the evening, she

went to the Police station along with the father and made a

complaint. The evidence given by the victim stands not

discredited in any manner. Though a suggestion was made
Crl.R.P No.1554 of 2003
4

to the witness and this is a false case foisted out of enmity,

she denied the suggestion. I find that the evidence given by

the girl clearly proves an offence punishable under Section

354 I.P.C. Of course, one of the material witnesses

examined by the prosecution turned hostile. He was

examined to say that he had seen the girl going to the

barber shop of the accused. Anyway, he turned hostile. I

find that the prosecution case stands proved by the

evidence of the victim, supported by the evidence of the

mother.

7. Now the question of sentence. The accused was

at the age of 35 years at the time of the incident. The

incident happened in September 1996. Twenty one and a

half years have elapsed since the date of incident. Now he

must be aged 56 or 57 years. At this stage, there is no

meaning in releasing him on probation. Anyway, I feel the

absolute necessity of reducing the sentence considerably.

The incident happened years back. On a consideration of

the various aspects including the age and circumstances of

the accused at present, I feel that there can be a deviation
Crl.R.P No.1554 of 2003
5

from the rule of minimum sentence under Section 354 (4)

Cr.P.C and a nominal sentence will suffice in this case.

In the result, the conviction against the revision

petitioner under Section 354 I.P.C in S.C 55/98 of the court

below is confirmed and the revision petition is disposed of

accordingly. However, the sentence imposed by the court

below under Section 354 I.P.C will stand modified and

reduced to simple imprisonment for one month. He will get

the benefit of set off as already ordered by the trial court.

Sd/-

P.UBAID
JUDGE
ma