Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad High Court

 Kerala High Court Rejects Delay in FIR as Ground for Acquittal, Upholds Conviction and Modifies Sentence in Case of Sexual Assault

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark ruling, the Kerala High Court dismissed the delay in filing the First Information Report (FIR) as a valid ground for acquittal and upheld the conviction of the accused while modifying the sentence in a case of sexual assault. The court's decision, delivered on June 12, 2023, reinforces the significance of timely reporting of such heinous crimes. The headline highlights the court's rejection of the delay in FIR argument, underscoring the importance of taking prompt action in cases of sexual assault.

The division bench consisting of The Honourable Mr. Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and The Honourable Mrs. Justice C.S. Sudha, pronounced their judgment on the appeal challenging the conviction and sentence of the accused, Raju. He stood charged with offenses punishable under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.

Addressing the defense's contention regarding the delay in filing the FIR, the court firmly stated, "A child who was subjected to sexual assault by her father, not disclosing the same to anyone during her childhood, is no reason to think that what is spoken to by her at a matured age is false." The court further emphasized that the delay in lodging the FIR had been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. This quote from the judgment emphasizes the court's stance on the significance of the victim's testimony and the need to consider the circumstances surrounding delayed reporting.

In addition to the delay argument, the defense raised other objections related to witness examination and corroborative evidence. However, the court found the victim's testimony to be credible, consistent, and supported by medical examination and expert opinions. The evidence presented by the victim was deemed genuine and devoid of doubt.

The judgment also addressed the modification of the sentence imposed on the accused. Considering various factors, including the social background of the parties involved, the court modified the sentence for the offense under Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC. The revised sentence imposed rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years, as opposed to imprisonment for the remainder of the accused's natural life.

The ruling sets a significant precedent, highlighting the court's stance on the importance of timely reporting in cases of sexual assault. It underscores the need to focus on the credibility of the victim's testimony while considering the specific circumstances of each case. The judgment serves as a reminder of the court's commitment to delivering justice and protecting the rights of survivors of sexual assault.

D.D-12 .JUNE. 2023

RAJU  VS STATE OF KERALA

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Raju_Vs_State_12_June_23_Kerla_HC1.pdf"]

Latest Legal News