VIDYADHARAN versus STATE OF KERALA

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 524 · Decided: 14-11-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
VIDYADHARAN 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA 
NOVEMBER 14, 2003 
B 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJITPASAYAT, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
Section 154-FJR-Delay in lodging-Incident of molestation of woman 
C -Held: In such an incident some delay is natural-When delay is sufficiently 
explained, it cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case. 
Section 193-Cognizance of offence directly by Court of Session--
Legality of-Held: Court of Session being Special Court under the Act can 
D take cognizance of offence only when case is committed to it by the 
Magistrate-However, if any provision is expressly provided in the Code or 
Act ii can act as Court of original jurisdiction without case being committed 
to it by the Magistrate-On facts, requirements of Section 193 not fulfilled 
and Sessions Court acting as Court of original jurisdiction, thus cognizance 
of offence under Section 3(J}(ix) directly not sustainable and hence set 
E aside-Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 
1989-Section 3(J)(ix). 
Penal Code, 1860: 
Sections 354 and 448-Conviction under-Plea of false imp/ication-
F Held: On account of enmity a person cannot normally be falsely implicated--
A/so, it is unusual in a conservative society-Further, when such plea is 
raised the Court is to deeply scrutinize the evidence and decide acceptability 
or otherwise of the accusations. 
G 
H 
Section 354-0ffence under-Criteria for determination of-Held: Mere 
knowledge that modesty of woman is likely lo be outraged is sufficient 
without any deliberate intention. 
Sections 354 and 3(J)(xi) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe 
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989-Difference between-Discussed-Further, 
524 
VIDY AD HARAN v. STA TE OF KERALA 
525 
held that offence under Section 3 is an aggravated form of offence under A 
Section 354. 
Section 448-Conviction under-Essential ingredients-Discussed 
According to the prosecution, appellant-accused outraged the modesty 
of the complainant-a married woman with children. She lodged an FIR the B 
next day. Appellant-accused was charged under Sections 354, 448 IPC and 
Section 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of 
Atrocities) Act, 1989. Prosecution witnesses were examined. Trial Court 
convicted and sentenced the appellant and High Court upheld the order. Hence 
the present appeal. 
C 
Appellant-accused contended that the evidence on record established that 
there was false implication; that the complainant's brother outraged modesty 
of the appellant's sister after trespassing into their house and as a counter 
blast false case was instituted; and that the conviction under Section 3(1)(xi) 
of the Act is clearly unsustainable and the Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction D 
to try the offence. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. The Sessions Judge could not have convicted the appellant 
for the offence under Section 3(l)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled E 
Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Therefore, conviction under Section 
3 (1) (ix) of the Act is set aside. However, for the offence under Sections 354 
and 448 IPC, appellant has suffered custodial sentence for three months which 
would meet the ends of justice considering the facts of the case. (534-D-F[ 
2. Though there was some delay in lodging the FIR, it is but natural in F 
a tradition bound society to avoid embarrassment which is inevitable when 
reputation of a woman is concerned. Delay in every case cannot be a ground 
to arouse suspicion. It can only be so when the delay is unexplained. In the 
instant case, the delay has been properly explained. (529-EI 
3. PW-2 being independent witness and a neighbour of both the appellant-
accused and the complainant, there is no reason for him to falsely implicate 
the appellant. A charge under Section 354 is one which is very easy to make 
and is very difficult to rebut. It is not that on account of enmity false 
implications are made. It would however, be unusual in a conservative society, 
G 
that a woman would be used as a pawn to wreck vengeance. Further, when a H 
526 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A plea is taken about false implication, Courts have a duty to make deeper 
scrutiny of the evidence and decide acceptability or otherwise of the 
accusations. In the instant case, both trial court and High Court have done 
that, thus there is no scope for taking a different view. (529-E-G] 
4.1. In order to constitute the offe

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.