Kerala High Court Declines To Suspend Execution Of Monson Mavunkal's Life Sentence For Sexually Abusing Employee's Minor Daughter

The Kerala High Court has dismissed a plea by Monson Mavunkal to suspend the execution of his life imprisonment sentence passed by the trial court in a sexual assault case.

“It is to be noted that the petitioner has been awarded the imprisonment for life on three different counts by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Suspending the sentence for life imprisonment can be resorted only in exceptional cases. The heinous nature of the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner/accused cannot be ignored" observed Justice PB Suresh Kumar and Justice S Manu.

According to the prosecution, Mavunkal had sexually abused the daughter of his employee. He allegedly represented himself as a cosmetology doctor, and offered to teach cosmetology to the victim girl along with her studies. It was also alleged that he had threatened her with dire consequences of losing the job of her mother and brother if the incident was disclosed to anyone else.

The trial court held the accused guilty of offences under Sections 5(j)(ii) [making female child pregnant as a consequence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault]; 5(l) [repeated penetrative sexual assault]; and 5(p) [penetrative sexual assault by person in trust or authority] r/w Section 6[Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault]; Section 9(l) [repeated sexual assault on a child]; and 9(p) [sexual assault by person in trust or authority] r/w Section 10 [Punishment for aggravated sexual assault]; and Section 11(iii) [Sexual harassment by showing child object in any form or media for pornographic purposes] r/w Section 12 [Punishment for Sexual Harassment] of the POCSO Act.

The court also found the accused guilty of offences under Sections 370(4) [Trafficking]; 342 [Punishment for wrongful confinement]; 354A(1)(iii) r/w 354A(2) [Sexual harassment and Punishment]; 376(2)(f)[Punishment for rape by person in position of authority]; 376(2)(n) [repeated rape on same woman]; 313[Causing miscarriage without woman's consent]; and 506 [Punishment for criminal intimidation] of the IPC and convicted him for the same.

Counsel for the petitioner rejected the charges and submitted that the case of the victim was fabricated and that the evidence cited by the prosecution was insubstantial. They added that the prosecution suppressed crucial materials and resorted to manipulating evidence in order to secure the conviction. As such, they argued that the petitioner is entitled to a suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the CrPC.

The High Court rejected these contentions on the basis that they would not be justified in referring to any material other than those admitted in evidence by the trial court unless it has been allowed by the court. Regarding the question of uncorroborated testimony of the victim, the court stated that convictions can be based on the evidence of the victim of a sexual assault as the evidence is considered of 'sterling quality'.

The court concluded that it is not within their jurisdiction to arrive at conclusive findings regarding the veracity of the evidence submitted by the prosecution for an application under Section 389 of the CrPC.

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 244

Case Title: Monson MC @ Monson Mavungal v. State of Kerala

Case Number: Crl. M. Appl. No 1 of 2023 in Crl A. No. 1064 of 2023

Click here to read/download the order