State of Kerala (Police) vs Shemavan Ramban

1 I N THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE, MUVATTUPUZHA (For the trial of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act Cases) Present:- Sri.

Anish Kumar P.V., M.A., LL.B., Special Judge Wednesday, the 21st day of February, 2024/02nd Phalgunam, 1945 SESSIONS CASE No.

1054/2023 Crime No.

194/2023 of Oonnukal Police Station Complainant:- State of Kerala represented by the Sub Inspector of Police Oonnukal.

By P.R.

Jamuna, Special Public Prosecutor Accused:- Shemavun Ramban, S/o Thomas, aged 77/2023, Carmel Dagara, Kandanadu, Kandanadu Kara, Thiruvankulam Village.

By Adv: M.Y.

Varghesekutty Offence : U/S.

354, 354A(1)(ii), 354A(1)(iv), 509 of Indian Penal Code and section 8 r/w 7, 12 r/w 11(i) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Plea : Not Guilty Finding : Not guilty Sentence or Order :- The accused is found not guilty of the offences punishable U/S.

354, 354A(1)(ii), 354A(1)(iv), 509 of Indian Penal Code and section 8 r/w 7, 12 r/w 11(i) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 charged against him, and he is acquitted of the offences charged 2 against him, u/s.

235 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure.

The bail bond executed by the accused stands cancelled and he is set at liberty.

Description of the accused Sl.

No Name Father’s Name Religion/ Caste Occupation Age Residence Shemavun Ramban Thomas - - 77/2023 Thiruvankulam Date of Occurrence Complaint Apprehens ion Released on bail Co mm ittal Commence ment of trial Close of trial Sentence or Order 03.04.2023 20.04.2023 21.04.2023 13.05.2023 -- 10.01.2024 17.02.2024 21.02.2024 This case having been finally heard on 17.02.2024 and the Court on 21.02.2024 delivered the following: JUDGMENT The accused herein stands charge sheeted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Oonnukal Police station alleging commission of the offences punishable U/S.

2. , 2012.

2.

The prosecution case is that the victim was 16 years old minor girl, the accused is the temporary appointed priest of her church.

On 03.04.2023 at about 1 pm, the victim went to her parish 3 for serving food to the petitioner, then the accused with sexual intention asked to victim can you breastfeed me? accused caught hold her hand and said please, please.., Thus, the accused committed an offence punishable under section under section U/S.

3.

The Sub Inspector of Police, Oonnukal conducted investigation, submitted final report before the Additional District and Sessions Court (PoCSO), Ernakulam.

On appearance of the accused he was enlarged on bail and copies of prosecution records were furnished to him.

As per the order of the Hon'ble Sessions Court, Ernakulam this case was made over to this court for trial and disposal.

4.

The accused appeared before this court.

After hearing both sides and verifying the records in the case charge U/S.

U/S.

4 5.

From the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW5 were examined and Exts.

P1 to P14 were marked.

Remaining witnesses were given up by Public Prosecutor.

6.

After completing the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned U/S.313 (1) (b) of Code of Criminal Procedure and the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them.

7.

On hearing both sides U/S.232 of Code of Criminal Procedure this court was of the opinion that there was no sufficient ground to acquit the accused at that stage.

The accused was called upon to enter on his defence.

No evidence was adduced from the defence side.

8.

Heard both sides.

9. sides.

9.

The points that arise for consideration are:- 1 Whether the accused outraged the modesty of the victim?

2 Whether the accused demand or request for sexual favours to the victim?

3 Whether the accused made sexually coloured remarks to the victim?

4 Whether the accused insult the modesty of the victim?

5 Whether the accused committed sexual assault on victim?

6 Whether the accused utters any word or any sound exhibit 5 any object or part of body with the intention such word or sound shall be heard or seen by the victim?

7 What is the appropriate sentence to be awarded to the accused, if he is found guilty ?

10.

Point Nos.

1 to 6 :- 11.

For the sake of convenience these points considered together.

12.

PW1 deposed that now she is 17 years old.

She has seen the accused.

She deposed that she did not state to the police that the accused committed sexual assault and other offences on her.

She further deposed that the accused did not commit any offences and sexual assault on her.

She was declared hostile to the prosecution.

She acknowledged her signature in the statement.

This statement is marked as Ext.P1.

She denied the contents of Ext.

P1(a).

According to her, she gave a statement to the Magistrate.

She acknowledged her signature in the statement and it is marked as Ext.

P2.

But she does not remember what she has stated.

She denied that the accused committed sexual assault on her.

She further deposed that, she does not want to continue the case.

13.

PW2 deposed that PW1 is her daughter.

She knows the accused.

She deposed that she did not state to the police that the accused 6 committed sexual assault or rape on PW1.

She denied that she has given any statement to the police.

P3.

She further deposed that, he does not want to continue the case.

14.

PW3 deposed that on 20/04/2023 she was the Civil Police Officer of Oonnukal Police Station, on that day she recorded the Ext. d the Ext.

P1 statement of the victim, victim was brought before the Magistrate for recording her statement u/s 164 Cr.PC and entire records produced before the Station House Officer.

15.

PW4 deposed that on 20/04/2023 he was the Sub Inspector of Oonnukal Police Station, on that day on the basis of Ext.

P1 statement he registered this case and prepared Ext.

P4 FIR, thereafter he deputed CW23 for recording the statement u/s 164 Cr.PC of the victim, further investigation was done by Station House Officer.

16.

PW5 deposed that on 20/04/2023 he was the Station House Officer of Pothanikkadu Police Station, on that day as per the order of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Muvattupuzha, he took the investigation of this case, he reached at the place of occurrence and prepared Ext.

P5 scene mahazar, he obtained Ext.

P6 medical certificate of the victim, on 7 21/04/2023 he arrested the accused and prepared Ext.

P7 series (3 numbers) arrest memo, inspection memo and custody memo, he obtained Ext.

P8 potency test report of the accused, he seized the cloth of the victim as per Ext.

P9 seizure mahazar, he seized the dress of accused as per Ext.

P10 seizure mahazar, he seized school admission register of the victim as per Ext.

P11 seizure mahazar, thereafter it returned as Ext.

P12 kaichit, he prepared section adding report, correct address of the accused and sent to the court, he obtained Ext.

P13 birth certificate of the victim, he obtained Ext.

P14 site plan of the place of occurrence, after completing the investigation he filed final report before the court.

17.

Let us look whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving the case against the accused ?

18.

PW1 is none other than the victim who did not support the prosecution case.

She is declared hostile to the prosecution.

She categorically deposed that the accused did not commit sexual assault and other offences on her.

PW1 further deposed that though she had given statement before the learned Magistrate, it was not true. not true.

So from the evidence of PW1 it can be seen that absolutely nothing to connect the accused with the alleged crime.

8 19.

PW2 is the mother of PW1, she deposed that she did not give any statement to the Police regarding the incident of this case.

She deposed that the accused did not commit sexual assault and other offences on PW1.

20.

PW3 to PW5 are the Investigating Officers.

There is no evidence to prove the allegation against the accused other than the testimony of official witnesses.

The question before me is whether the testimony of the police official is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond the shadow of doubt.

21.

As PW1 victim did not support the prosecution case and specifically stated that the accused did not commit any offence against her, I am of the view that the testimony of the official witnesses are not sufficient to fasten the criminal liability upon the accused.

22.

Therefore I am of the view that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond the shadow of doubt.

These points are answered accordingly against the prosecution.

23.

Point No.

12 :- The accused is found not guilty of the offences punishable U/S 354, 354A(1)(ii), 354A(1)(iv), 509 of Indian Penal Code and section 8 r/w 7, 9 12 r/w 11(i) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, charged against him, and he is acquitted of the offences charged against him, u/s.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Court on this the 21st day of February, 2024.

Sd/- ANISH KUMAR P.V.

SPECIAL JUDGE Appendix Prosecution Exhibits:- P1 First information statement P1(a) Part of first information statement P2 Statement u/s 164 Cr. /s 164 Cr.PC P3 Part of 161 statement P4 FIR P5 Scene Mahazar P6 Medical Certificate of victim P7 series Arrest Memo, Inspection Memo, Custody Memo P8 Potency Certificate of accused P9 Seizure Mahazar of dress of victim P10 Seizure Mahazar of dress of accused P11 Seizure Mahzar of School Admission Register P12 Kaichit P13 Birth Certificate of victim 10 P14 Site plan Prosecution Witnesses:- PW1 24.01.2024 Victim PW2 24.01.2024 Limi Roy W/o Roy PW3 02.02.2024 Bushara T.A., Senior Civil Police Officer-11560, Oonnukal Police Station.

PW4 02.02.2024 Sidheek K.P., Sub Inspector of Police, Oonukal Police Station.

PW5 02.02.2024 Sameesh P.H.,Station House Officer, Pothanikkadu Police Station.

Defence Exhibits:- Nil Defence witnesses :- Nil Material Objects:- Nil Sd/- SPECIAL JUDGE //True Copy// SPECIAL JUDGE 11 S.C.

No.

1054 of 2023 JUDGMENT Dated : 21.02.2024