IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1940

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2004 of 2003

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 107/2002 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT
(ADHOC), THODUPUZHA
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 78/1998 of J.M.F.C. – I, IDUKKI

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT:

JOSEPH S/O.JOSEPH,
UPPUMAKKAL HOUSE,
CHELACHUVADU KARA,
KANJIKUZHY VILLAGE.

BY ADVS.SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI
SRI.R.ANIL
SRI.GEORGE PHILIP

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

STATE, 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
20-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

P.UBAID, J.
~~~~~~~~~~
Crl.R.P No.2004 of 2003
~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 20th June, 2018

ORDER

The revision petitioner herein challenges the

conviction and sentence against him under Section 377

I.P.C in C.C No.78/1998 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate

Court, Idukki. He faced prosecution on the allegation that

at about 11 a.m on 17.1.1998, he enticed a minor girl aged

9 years and took her to his house at the Mother Theresa

Colony where he subjected the girl to unnatural sex. The

Police registered the crime on the complaint made by the

mother of the girl and after investigation, submitted final

report in report.

2. The accused appeared before the learned

Magistrate and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed

against him. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses and

proved Exts.P1 to P6 documents in the trial court. The

accused denied the incriminating circumstances when

examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, but he did not adduce

any evidence in defence.

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

found the accused guilty. On conviction, he was sentenced
Crl.R.P No.2004 of 2003
2

to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a

fine of b93000/-. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction

dated 10.5.2002, the accused approached the Court of

Session with Crl.A No.107/2002. In appeal, the learned

Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Thodupuzha 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.

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

available materials, I find no scope for interference in the

findings and the conviction made by the courts below

concurrently against the revision petitioner. When this

Court required some documents from the trial court, a

report was received from the trial court that the accused

has already served out the sentence and has been

released from jail. On his application in this revision

petition, the sentence was suspended by this Court on

conditions. When the accused could not produce the

required sureties, he opted to serve out the sentence, and

accordingly he was committed to Central Prison,
Crl.R.P No.2004 of 2003
3

Thiruvananthapuram by the trial court. The report of the

learned Magistrate shows that out of the fine amount

b92000/- was remitted by him on 25.6.2002 and the balance

amount was remitted on 4.7.2005. The report also shows

that the accused was released from the Central Prison on

7.9.2005 on his earning remission for five months and five

days.

5. Of the 11 witnesses examined in the trial court,

PW1 is the victim and PW6 is her mother, who preferred the

complaint. PW2 to PW5 examined as material witnesses by

the prosecution turned hostile. However, on an appreciation

of the evidence given by the victim, supported by the

evidence given by the mother, both the courts below found

the accused guilty. Though the mother of the victim is not

an eye-witness, her evidence was found admissible by the

courts below as res-gestae evidence because it contains

the statements given by the victim to her immediately after

the incident as to what exactly happened to her. Though

the independent witnesses turned hostile, the victim and

her mother stood firm in their versions and proved the

prosecution case in the trial court. The courts below could
Crl.R.P No.2004 of 2003
4

not find anything to suspect the evidence given by the

victim and her mother or to reject their evidence. In this

revision, the Court cannot go to the factual aspects. This

Court’s concern is whether there is any illegality or

irregularity or impropriety in the findings or the conviction

made by the courts below.

6. On a perusal of the materials, I find that there is

no ground for interference in the orders of the courts below

on the ground of any illegality or irregularity or impropriety.

As regards the factual aspects, both the courts below fully

believed the victim and her mother finding that their

evidence is blemishless. On that aspect, the High Court

cannot interfere in revision.

In the result, this revision petition is dismissed

confirming the conviction and sentence against the revision

petitioner in C.C 78/1998 of the court below.

Sd/-

P.UBAID
JUDGE
ma