SANTHOSH MADHAVAN @ SWAMI AMRITHA CHAITHANYA Vs. STATE
LAWS(KER)-2013-12-95
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on
December 19,2013
Santhosh Madhavan @ Swami Amritha Chaithanya
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V. PRAFUL B DESAI [REFERRED TO]TIKA RAM V. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
KEISAM KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [REFERRED TO]
MADAN LAL VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [REFERRED TO]
SURESH N BHUSARE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRASEKHAR SURESH CHANDRA BHATT VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
JOSEPH VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
LALLU MANJHI VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [REFERRED TO]
VIMAL SURESH KAMBLE VS. CHALUVERAPINAKE APAL S P [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. PRAFUL B DESAI [REFERRED TO]
KAMALANANTHA VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF M P VS. DAYAL SAHU [REFERRED TO]
VISHNU ALIAS UNDRYA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
RAMDAS VS. STATE OF MAHARASTRA [REFERRED TO]
NAMDEO VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. SIRAJ AHMED NISAR AHMED [REFERRED TO]
ZINDAR ALI SK VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
SATBIR SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
TUKARAM S DIGHOLE VS. MANIKRAO SHIVAJI KOKATE [REFERRED TO]
SIDHARTHA VASHISHT ALIAS MANU SHARMA VS. STATE NCT OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
BALRAJE ALIAS TRIMBAK VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY ALIAS CHINEE VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
C MUNIAPPAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
NILESH DINKAR PARADKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
BHAJAN SINGH ALIAS HARBHAJAN SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
NEEL KUMAR ALIAS ANIL KUMAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH HARIJAN VS. STATE OF UP [REFERRED TO]
NARENDER KUMAR VS. STATE NCT OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
THOTI MANOHAR VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
DAYAL SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL [REFERRED TO]
RAI SANDEEP ALIAS DEEPU VS. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
RAI SANDEEP ALIAS DEEPU VS. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. ABOOBACKER [REFERRED TO]
KURIA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH PATEL VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [REFERRED TO]
SUBAL GHORAI VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
KARAN SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
KAINI RAJAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
SHERIN V JOHN VS. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [LAWS(KER)-2018-4-38] [REFERRED TO]P.GOPALAKRISHNAN @ DILEEP VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2018-8-223] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
P.BHAVADASAN,J. -
(1.)THE appellant along with his driver were prosecuted for various offences in five cases,namely,S.C.Nos.368,369,370,371,428 and 429 of 2008.The appellant was the first accused in all these cases.The second accused,his driver,was acquitted in all cases,but the appellant,who,as already stated,is the first accused in all cases,found himself convicted in S.C.368,369 and 429 of 2008.In S.C.368 of 2008,he was convicted for the offences under Sections 342 and 376 of Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 342 of I.P.C.For the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C .,he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years and to pay fine of Rs.2,1 0,000/ -,in default,to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.If the fine amount was realized,a sum of Rs.2,00,000/ - was directed to be paid as compensation to P.W.1.In S.C.369 and 429 of 2008,the appellant,who is the first accused,was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 376 of I.P.C.and he was sentenced to underg ; ; ;;;sL;ADAous imprisonment for eight years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/ - with a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two months.In the other cases,both the accused stood acquitted.
(2.)THESE appeals tell the shocking tale of a self made thantric,priest,astrologer and what not,who wielded considerable influence among the people and used his privileged position to commit one of the most heinous crimes namely rape,that too on minor girls.
(3.)AS we are concerned with only S.C.368 of 2008 which gives rise to Crl.Appeal.1630/2009 and S.C.369 and 429 of 2008 which gave rise to Crl.Appeal.1599/2009,facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals alone are being referred to.In Crl.Appeal 1630 of 2009 the victim is examined as P.W.1 and in Crl.Appeal 1599 of 2009 the victim is examined as P.W.2.
The allegations in S.C.368 of 2008 are that the victim,namely,P.W.1,who was an inmate of Santhitheeram,™House of kids ™run by the Trust headed by the appellant herein who managed to procure the presence of the girl in his flat on 15.1.2006 and 16.1.2006,was sexually exploited.That was followed on one day in March also.In S.C.369 of 2008,the allegation is that there too the victim,a minor girl,was induced to go from her house to the flat on three holidays in June,2006 and she was brutally raped.
(2.)THESE appeals tell the shocking tale of a self made thantric,priest,astrologer and what not,who wielded considerable influence among the people and used his privileged position to commit one of the most heinous crimes namely rape,that too on minor girls.
(3.)AS we are concerned with only S.C.368 of 2008 which gives rise to Crl.Appeal.1630/2009 and S.C.369 and 429 of 2008 which gave rise to Crl.Appeal.1599/2009,facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals alone are being referred to.In Crl.Appeal 1630 of 2009 the victim is examined as P.W.1 and in Crl.Appeal 1599 of 2009 the victim is examined as P.W.2.
The allegations in S.C.368 of 2008 are that the victim,namely,P.W.1,who was an inmate of Santhitheeram,™House of kids ™run by the Trust headed by the appellant herein who managed to procure the presence of the girl in his flat on 15.1.2006 and 16.1.2006,was sexually exploited.That was followed on one day in March also.In S.C.369 of 2008,the allegation is that there too the victim,a minor girl,was induced to go from her house to the flat on three holidays in June,2006 and she was brutally raped.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.