When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court

Kerala High Court, in a significant decision under its criminal appellate jurisdiction, acquitted all six appellants, while also dismissing a Criminal Revision Petition filed by the de facto complainant Nafeesa, who had sought conviction on graver charges including attempt to rape, house trespass, and robbery.

Justice Johnson John, presiding over the matter, observed that the conviction recorded by the Trial Court under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 427 and 452 read with Section 149 IPC was unsustainable, owing to the prosecution’s failure to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court further held that “where the prosecution story emerges only after consultation with political and community leaders, and is unsupported by prompt FIR, medical corroboration, or identification evidence, the accused must receive the benefit of doubt.”

“Conviction Cannot Rest on Contradictory Testimony and Absence of Medical Evidence in Alleged Sexual Assault”

The Court took strong exception to the quality of evidence brought forth. It noted that the entire prosecution case rested on the testimonies of PW1 (victim), PW2 (her son), and PW5 (minor daughter)—all related witnesses—with no medical, forensic, or reliable independent corroboration.

PW1 had alleged that a group of 14 persons broke into her home, outraged her modesty, attempted to rape her, and looted valuables. However, medical reports (Exhibits P3–P6) issued by the doctors who examined her and PW5 found no external injuries, no signs of sexual assault, and no semen or spermatozoa detected in the samples.

Further, neighbour PW9 turned hostile and denied the presence of PW1’s son at the scene, contradicting the prosecution’s claim. The Court concluded, “The evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW5 is riddled with material contradictions and inconsistencies… in the absence of medical and scientific evidence, conviction cannot be based merely on their testimony.”

“Witness Identification Must Be Clear and Compliant with Law—Dock Identification in This Case Found Deficient”

Justice Johnson John noted several lapses in the identification of accused persons, with the witnesses failing to properly identify them in court, and giving inconsistent depositions regarding who committed what act. Citing the precedents in Vayalali Girishan v. State of Kerala (2016 KHC 204) and Shaji @ Babu v. State of Kerala (2021 (5) KHC SN 27), the Court reiterated that: “Even if the accused are known to the witnesses, it is obligatory for the court to record that the witness identified the accused in the dock, which is the substantive evidence in law.”

In this case, witnesses made vague and changing identifications, sometimes confusing names, and admitting they were unable to recognise key persons involved.

“Delay in FIR Lodging Raises Suspicion of Fabrication—Court Finds First Statement Tainted by Political Consultation”

The High Court flagged the serious delay in lodging the FIR, despite the police station being just 150 meters from the Nadapuram bus stand. While the incident allegedly took place on 15 January 2001, the First Information Statement (Exhibit P1) was recorded only on 16 January evening.

Crucially, PW1 herself admitted in cross-examination that the FIR was lodged only after consulting with her husband, elder son, and Muslim League office-bearers. The Court noted: “When the FIR is lodged after extensive deliberation and consultation, the possibility of a coloured or exaggerated version cannot be ruled out.”

Relying on Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar (2012) 4 SCC 379, the Bench emphasized that prompt filing of FIR lends credibility, and the absence thereof dilutes the reliability of the case narrative.

“Material Witnesses Were Withheld—Adverse Inference Must Follow”

The prosecution’s decision to withhold crucial witnesses, particularly CW3 (elder daughter of PW1) and CW6 (neighbour’s wife)—both of whom were present at the scene or involved in post-incident care—was another major flaw.

Relying on Shinoj Singh v. State of Kerala (2024 KHC 62), the Court held: “Where there is a gap or infirmity in the prosecution case which could have been bridged by examining available witnesses who are not brought to the stand, the Court is obliged to draw an adverse inference.”

This non-examination cast serious doubt on the prosecution’s intention to bring the full truth to light.

“Accused Hospitalised at Time of Incident—Prosecution Suppressed Vital Facts”

A turning point in the appeal came with defence evidence showing that A2, Vinodan, had been hospitalised after a bomb blast at the exact time of the alleged incident. Hospital records (Exhibits D11, D18) confirmed that Vinodan had his left palm amputated and was admitted on 15 January 2001 at 6:45 p.m., corroborated by DW1 (doctor) and DW5 (Superintendent, Medical College).

The Court observed that this key exculpatory fact was suppressed by the prosecution, calling it “a serious lapse that undermines the credibility of the entire case.” It also found support in police documents (Exhibits D16, D17) showing the accused himself had filed an FIR as victim of the bomb blast.

“Criminal Revision Against Acquittal Unsustainable—Findings of Trial Court Not Perverse”

The de facto complainant’s attempt to challenge the acquittal of other accused and on more serious charges under Sections 354, 395, and 511 r/w 376 IPC also failed. The High Court reaffirmed that a revisional court cannot interfere unless the trial court's findings are perverse or legally untenable. Justice Johnson John concluded:

“Since the trial court’s findings were based on appreciation of available evidence and no perversity is shown, there is no ground to interfere.”

Accused Entitled to Benefit of Doubt

Justice Johnson John summed up the decision with the following legal reasoning:

“When the prosecution story is not corroborated by prompt FIR, lacks independent evidence, and is riddled with contradictions, the accused are entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt. Conviction cannot rest on shaky testimony without medical, forensic or objective corroboration.”

Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence set aside, and the accused were acquitted of all charges. The Criminal Revision Petition was dismissed.

Date of Decision: 11 December 2025