MUHAMMED @ BAPPUTTY vs THE STATE OF KERALA

These cases arise from Crime Nos.118 of 2017 and 119 of 2017 both of Karuvarakundu Police Station.

In Crime No.118 of 2017, the victim, who is a 14 year old boy, who is the second respondent herein alleged that 4 of the accused subjected

the minor to unnatural offence, one after another in a cocoa grove on a day in October 2016. FIS was lodged on 29.05.2017 and crime was

registered. After investigation, final report was laid for offences punishable under section 377 r/w 34 of the IPC and under sections 7 and 8 of

POCSO Act. The case is now pending as S.C.No.846 of 2017 of the District and Sessions Court, Manjeri. It is stated in the Crl.M.C that the

disputes have been settled between the parties and affidavits in support of the settlement have been produced as Annexures-A4 and A5 signed by

respondents 3 and 4, who are the parents of the victim. They seek to quash the proceedings. In Crime No.119 of 2017, the allegation is that some

time in march 2015, the same victim as in Crime No.118 of 2017 was subjected to unnatural offence by 5 other accused. FIS was laid on

29.05.2017 along with Crime No.118 of 2017. Crime was registered as Crime No.119 of 2017. After investigation, final report was laid. The

second respondent is the victim and the third and fourth respondents are his parents. It is stated that the parties have resolved their disputes and

affidavits signed by respondents 3 and 4 are produced as Annexures-A4 and A5. They sought to quash the proceedings.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the contesting respondents and the learned Public Prosecutor. Since the

offences alleged against the accused are very serious, this Court was not inclined to quash the proceedings on consent and compromise. Hence,

learned counsel for the petitioners in both cases chose to argue the matter on merits.

The contention set up by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the case is absolutely a false one and based on personal rivalry. Victim

has, based on imaginary grounds, set up a false case. In Crime No.118 of 2017, it was alleged that, on a day in October 2016, the victim did not

go to school. He was roaming around at places and went to cocoa grove belonging to the first accused, accompanied by the son of the first

accused, the second, third and fourth accused. While so, other persons accompanying him went deep into the cocoa grove to pluck jack fruit.

Then first accused reached the spot, undressed him, made him lie on the floor and committed unnatural sex on him. After he left, accused Nos. 2 to

4 came and they committed unnatural offence on him one after another. He did not reveal this to any person. Few days prior to the lodging of the

FIS, mother of the victim is stated to have got information about the incident and hence the complaint was filed.

In Crime No.119 of 2017, the allegation of the victim was that in March 2015, he had gone to a playground to play. After the game was over,

all the accused therein came near the ground and took him to a nearby place. It is stated that the first accused undressed him and committed

unnatural offence on him. The remaining accused also repeated the same act one after another. They also allegedly threatened him not to reveal it

to any other person.

In the course of investigation, section 164 Cr.P.C statement of the victim was recorded in Crime No.118 of 2017. In that, he took a completely

different stand and stated that, one day, one unknown person came to him and offered him money if he implicated the accused in a crime by

alleging unnatural offence against him. Thereafter, he informed his father about the imaginary incident and got the crime registered. He asserted that

there was no truth in his complaint.

In the section 164 Cr.P.C statement in Crime No.119 of 2017 also, he repeated the same excuse and submitted that, on one day, one person

met him and offered him money, if he raise false allegations against the accused in Crime No.119 of 2017. Hence, he suggested the false story to

his father and the complaint was got registered. The allegations in the complaint are false and he was not abused by the accused herein.

The above version shows that, in both the cases, regarding the alleged incident, petitioner has exactly identical version. The similarity between

both the cases, the manner in which the incident allegedly happened and the fact that a group of persons took the accused to a nearby place and

one after another abused during day light appears to be difficult to believe. This is more so, since exactly similar allegations are raised not only in

the crime but also while taking a totally contradictory stand in section 164 Cr.P.C statement. In the section 164 Cr.P.C statement, his version is

that, on an unspecified day, an unidentified person offered money to falsely implicate the accused. There is absolutely no explanation as to who that

person was. This also appears to be extremely artificial and similarity in all incidents is strikingly similar to doubt the genuineness of allegations.

It was also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners in Crime No.118 of 2017 that the victim was accompanied by the son of the

first accused. Thereafter, first accused himself committed the offence on him. This also seems to be unbelievable that the first accused committed

offence, while his son was around.

Learned Public Prosecutor stated that the accused, at the time of recording his statement after the Crl.M.C was filed, again retracted and said

that he gave section 164 Cr.P.C statement under due pressure. His parents has taken a totally different view and filed a statement stating that the

matter has been settled.

In these totally unreliable situation, it will not be advisable to place the accused for trial. There is no likelihood of the case surviving the test of

cross examination. The version of victim is thoroughly unreliable. Hence, I feel that the petitioners are entitled to succeed and the Crl.M.Cs are

liable to be allowed.

Accordingly, Crl.M.C.Nos.7729 and 7730 of 2017 stand allowed. All further proceedings in S.C.No.846 of 2017 and 848 of 2017 of the

District and Sessions Court, Manjeri arising from Crime Nos.118 of 2017 and 119 of 2017 both of Karuvarakundu Police Station will stand

quashed.