The case Is FR.EDWIN PIGAREZ VERSUS STATE OF KERALA , JJ.Crl.Appeal Nos.1321 of 2016 and 160 of 2017.

The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 160 of 2017 is the first accused and the appellant in Criminal appeal No.1321 of 2016 is the second accused on the files of Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam. The first appellant was convicted under many offences which are punishable under many sections Section 375 (a) of IPC and Section 3 (a) , Section 3 (b)  under POCSO Act. And the second appellant convicted for the offence under section 212 of IPC.

The accused are brothers .First accused was a vicar in during that period. She used to attend morning prayer with her mother. After the prayer the victim goes missing .The first was accused was with the victim. So her mother questioned him  and went suspicious. Later on questioning she has revealed that she was sexually assaulted by the first accuse. After mother informed to authorities of the church and went to police station to file a case.

During  cross examination they if there was any consensual relationship between them or  the suggestion during this was first accused refused her love proposal. So the victim was giving false statement against him.

First accused was sentenced to undergo twenty  years imprisonment  and second accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment. The victim was went to medical examination before and after registration of the case. The relatives of the first accused met them to settle the case amicably and it is informed to them as it was not possible.

 Sushil Kumar v. Rakesh kumar, (2003) 8 SCC 673 and many more cases ,the apex court held that determination of date of birth of a person before a court of law, whether in a civil or criminal proceedings, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

The birth Certificate was not challenged to accuse  the Victim is 21.09.2000 and that she was a child in terms of provisions contained in the POCSO Act during 2014 and 2015.  The sterling witnesses is the one that appears to be natural and consistent in the case.  In the medical examination she found evidence of sexual intercourse.

The second accused allegation was against him that he had harboured  the first accused from legal punishment. Special court found guilty that the second accused has done the offence under section 212 of IPC. There was no satisfactory evidence to prove that the victim was a child under POCSO Act during that period.

 In another case Jamali Singh v. State of Harayana, (2013) 7 SCC  263, it said that the age of the victim in this case will be given according to the provision contained in Section 94 of Juvenile Justice ( Careand Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Police officer collected the birth certificate of the victim and produced same before the court .Rape is crime it effects upon women in the society. First accused for the offence of rape he was punished rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years instead of natural life remainder .

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgment Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace

Click to view the judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *