Separate Incidents of Sexual Assault Are Distinct Offences — No Double Jeopardy When Crimes Differ by Time and Place: Kerala High Court

“Registration of Multiple FIRs for Different Criminal Acts with Same Survivor Is Legally Permissible — Abuse of Process Not Attracted”, In a significant ruling on the scope of Article 20(2) of the Constitution and the doctrine of double jeopardy, the Kerala High Court held that distinct incidents of rape occurring at different times and places, even involving the same survivor, do not constitute a single transaction and can be separately prosecuted.

Justice G. Girish, presiding over the matter, dismissed the petition filed under Section 482 CrPC which sought quashing of the FIR registered at Guruvayoor Temple Police Station. The petitioner claimed that the case was already being tried in Thiruvananthapuram for the same offence, and continuation of proceedings at Guruvayoor would amount to double jeopardy and an abuse of process.

However, the Court observed:
“The offences committed on 30th June 2019 at Thiruvananthapuram and those on 19th & 20th October 2019 at Guruvayoor are totally unconnected and independent in respect of place, time, and mode of commission.”

Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Claim by Clarifying the Nature of Independent Offences

The petitioner relied on the FIRs registered at Mananthavady, Thampanoor, and Guruvayoor, and pointed out that a final report had already been filed by the Thiruvananthapuram police covering allegations from all locations. Based on this, it was argued that continuing with the Guruvayoor FIR would violate Article 20(2), which protects individuals from being prosecuted and punished more than once for the same offence.

Rejecting this, the Court reasoned that each offence must be judged by its factual circumstances:

“The mere fact that Annexure-D final report and Annexure-C FIR prepared by the Thiruvananthapuram Police contained reference about the rape committed by the petitioner at Guruvayoor... does not mean that the above records covered the investigation relating to the offence committed by the petitioner at Guruvayoor.”

The Court emphasized that there was no material to show that charges had been framed in Thiruvananthapuram regarding the Guruvayoor incident, and noted that the petitioner had failed to produce any such charge-sheet.

It ruled:
“The offences at Thiruvananthapuram and Guruvayoor cannot be said to be forming part of the same transaction. They are distinct in time, place, and circumstances.”

No Abuse of Process When FIRs Concern Separate Occurrences

The petitioner had also invoked the principle of abuse of legal process, arguing that prosecuting him under multiple FIRs relating to the same survivor would be excessive and unfair.

The Court firmly held otherwise, stating:
“Annexure A FIR registered by the Guruvayoor Police, and Annexure C FIR registered by the Thiruvananthapuram Police, are in respect of separate and unconnected offences of rape committed by the petitioner upon the survivor on two different occasions at two different locations.”

It was clarified that such distinct episodes justify independent FIRs and prosecutions, and hence there was no violation of the law against multiple FIRs for the same offence.

Procedural Safeguards Issued to Avoid Any Overlap in Prosecution

Although dismissing the petition, the Court issued a specific direction to the Special Court at Nedumangad, which is trying the Thiruvananthapuram case, to ensure that there is no overlap or duplication in charges related to the Guruvayoor incident.

Justice Girish directed:
“The Special Court for SC/ST (PoA) Act Cases, Nedumangad, shall ensure that the trial in Annexure-D final report is confined to the offence committed at Thiruvananthapuram.”

In case any charge had been wrongly framed concerning the Guruvayoor incident, the Court ordered the charge be altered appropriately in accordance with law.

Distinct Offences Demand Distinct Trials — Petition Dismissed

Ultimately, the Court reaffirmed the legal position that multiple FIRs do not amount to double jeopardy when they pertain to separate criminal acts, even if committed against the same person.

“The facts and circumstances of this case do not cover a situation of impermissible multiple FIRs. Each offence must be independently investigated and tried if it is a separate criminal act,” the Court concluded.

Date of Decision: 09 June 2025