ANURAJ vs STATE OF KERALA

The petitioner herein stands arrayed as the sole accused in SC No. 334/2014 of the First Additional Sessions Court, Thodupuzha for offences

punishable under sections 354 and 506(ii) IPC and sections 11 (i) and 12 of POCSO Act.

It was alleged by the prosecution that, on 4/2/3014, while the 17 year old victim was proceeding along the road, the accused intercepted her,

declared that he will not permit the victim to get married and also threatened the person who was accompanying the victim. Pursuant to the

complaint lodged, crime was registered and after investigation, final report was laid. In the course of trial, the defence is stated to have shown

certain letters stated to have been written by the victim to the accused. It was alleged that, those letters would show that the victim was maintaining

close relationship with the petitioner and she had authored the above letters. The victim denied the authorship of those letters. Thereafter, specimen

hand writing of the victim was obtained in court.

The defence filed Criminal M.P.No. 5796/2017 with a request to send those letters and the specimen hand writing of the victim for expert

opinion. The court below, after hearing both the sides, rejected the above application holding that it was irrelevant for the consideration of the issue

in dispute.

Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor, who vehemently opposed the application.

It may prima facie appear that, when the specific allegation under section 354 IPC is sought to be established through the oral evidence, letters

allegedly written by the victim to the accused has no relevance.The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner herein contended that, in the

course of the cross examination, those letters were shown to the victim. She denied its authorship. She was confronted with several questions

touching upon alleged close relationship between the accused and her, which was stoutly denied by her.

It is pertinent to note that, the victim did not raise a case that the accused was a stranger. If that be so, the contention set up by the learned

senior counsel on the basis of letters would have much relevance. However, learned counsel argued on a different angle. It was contended that all

other witnesses turned hostile. The fate of the prosecution completely relied on the sole testimony of the victim. If the court below, on an evaluation

of the available materials holds that the victim''s evidence inspires confidence, the petitioner herein will not be able to bring any other evidence to

the contra. It was hence contended that the only method of disbelieving her was by demolishing the credibility of the witness. It seems that, there is

substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner raised from that angle, and in the peculiar circumstances, I feel that the above

letters have some relevance. This is more so, since the petitioner herein has a specific contention that to break the relationship between the parties,

a false case was set up at the instance of the family members of the defacto complainant, a false case was set up.

Having considered the above, I feel that the court below ought to have allowed the application. Hence, the Crl.M.C.is liable to be allowed.

Accordingly, Crl.M.A.No.5796/2017 stands allowed. The impugned order stands set aside. The court below shall forward the original letters

produced by the petitioner herein and confronted at the time of cross examination, along with specimen hand writing for expert opinion. The court

shall thereafter proceed in accordance with law thereafter. Crl.M.C.is allowed as above.