High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
SHABNA KEEDAKKADAN v. STATE OF KERALA - Crl Rev Pet No. 3201 of 2006  RD-KL 705 (11 September 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMCrl Rev Pet No. 3201 of 2006()
1. SHABNA KEEDAKKADAN, D/O.HASSAN,
1. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.R.P.No. 3201 of 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 11th day of September, 2006
O R D E RThis revision petition is preferred by the petitioner - the defacto complainant/prosecutrix complaining about the judgment of acquittal rendered in favour of the respondent/accused in a prosecution under Section 376 I.P.C.
2. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner is that he committed rape on the petitioner, a friend of his sister, at 4.30 p.m. on 16.4.2004 inside the bed room of his house. He had allegedly induced the victim/complainant to proceed to the house of her friend, where the victim was allegedly subjected to sexual intercourse. The victim did not complain for a long period of time. But later, when the promise of the accused to marry her did not fructify, she filed a private complaint, which was referred to the police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. It is thereupon that the charge sheet was filed by the police after due investigation. Crl.R.P.No. 3201 of 2006 2
3. The prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 6 and proved Exts.P1 to P6. The vital evidence available is that of the complainant as PW1, the complaint filed by her before the court as Ext.P1, which was registered as the F.I. Statement, as also the evidence of PW2/doctor and Ext.P2 medical certificate.
4. The accused took up a defence of total denial and contended that false allegations were being raised against him by PW1. At any rate, the indications suggest that there was no sexual intercourse against the will and without the consent of the prosecutrix, it was urged.
5. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, on an anxious consideration of the evidence of PW1, came to the conclusion that it may not be safe to place reliance on the evidence of PW1 to found a verdict of guilty and conviction for the offence of rape against the accused/respondent herein. Accordingly the learned Addl. Sessions Judge proceeded to pass the impugned judgment of acquittal.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Sessions Judge erred in not placing reliance on the oral evidence of PW1. PW1 should have been believed, contends the learned counsel. Crl.R.P.No. 3201 of 2006 3
7. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of jurisdiction of this court while considering the challenge in revision against the judgment of acquittal at the instance of a defacto complainant. The State/Prosecutor has not preferred any appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal. The trial court has the evident advantage of seeing the witnesses perform in the witness stand before it. An alert trial Judge perceives many a vital inputs which will help the court in the matter of appreciation of evidence. A superior court should not lightly interfere with such findings of fact or exercise of discretion by trial courts in the matter of appreciation of evidence unless the error committed in the appreciation of evidence is gross and amounts to perversity and such vice in turn leads to miscarriage of justice. The revisional jurisdiction should not be invoked to interfere with such judgment of acquittal founded on findings of fact and exercise of discretion.
8. Having considered the impugned judgment and the oral evidence of PW1 very anxiously in the light of the evidence of PW2 and the belated complaint, Ext.P1, I am certainly of the opinion that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any such gross error or vice which would Crl.R.P.No. 3201 of 2006 4 justify the invocation of the correctional and supervisory jurisdiction vested in this court. Of course, it is not the law that ocular corroboration of the evidence of the victim of rape can or need be insisted before such testimony is accepted. Ocular corroboration need not be there, but the broad circumstances must certainly inspire confidence in the mind of the court. That assurance/satisfaction is evidently not available in the facts and circumstances of this case and hence I concur with the conclusion of the court below that safe reliance cannot be placed on the uncorroborated testimony of PW1. Corroboration either ocular or from circumstance is not available and this certainly does not appeal to me to be a case where implicit reliance can be placed on the oral evidence of PW1. The challenge must in these circumstances fail.
9. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.