Kerala HC Upholds 10-Year Jail Term for Raping 73-Year-Old Woman [Read Judgment]

Ernakulam: The Kerala High Court has upheld the conviction and 10-year rigorous imprisonment of a man for sexually assaulting a 73-year-old woman at her home on the pretext of curing her of evil spirits. 

It held that the victim’s correction of the date of the offence on being recalled, after a mistake in the first statement, was not a material improvement, and that a 19-day delay in lodging the FIR was sufficiently explained. It cancelled his bail and directed him to surrender forthwith.

Justice A. Badharudeen was hearing Criminal Appeal No. 2143 of 2024 filed by Muhammed, aged 61, against the judgment dated 11.09.2024 of the Fast Track Special Court II, Thrissur, in S.C. No. 454 of 2023 (Crime No. 819/2022, Cherpu Police Station). The Special Court had convicted him under Sections 354A(1)(i) and 376(1) of the IPC and sentenced him to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 1,00,000 for rape, and three years with a fine of Rs 25,000 for the offence under Section 354A(1)(i), to run concurrently.

The prosecution case was that on 08.10.2022 at about 12.30 p.m. the accused went to the victim’s house after her son, who was abroad, asked her to contact him with her difficulties. He allegedly told her that idols and evil spirit were on her body, touched her breast and, as “treatment”, inserted his finger in her vagina and touched her private parts.

For the appellant, it was argued that the victim first deposed that the incident was on 07.10.2022 and, when recalled, said 08.10.2022, a material improvement, relying on State of Rajasthan v. Kalki, Radhey Shyam v. State of Rajasthan and Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. He also argued that the FIR was registered after an unexplained 19-day delay, that no external injury was found, that the call records lacked a Section 65B certificate, and that the victim’s son spoke of enmity over sale of property. The Public Prosecutor said the date in the FIS was a mistake corrected by an additional statement.

The Court accepted that a victim of sexual assault changing the date of occurrence at trial can be a material omission, but held the situation here was different. The date was wrongly mentioned as 07.10.2022 in the FIS by mistake or memory loss and corrected in an additional statement the next day, so it could not be treated as a material omission. It noted that the Public Prosecutor ought to have elicited the correct date in her first examination, but that this failure would not stand in the way of believing her version, which was supported by three calls between the accused and the victim on 08.10.2022, as shown by the call details and the Nodal Officer’s evidence.

On delay, the Court noted that the victim explained in the FIS and her evidence that she decided to give a statement only after discussing it with her son abroad and her daughters. It held:

“in case of sexual molestation, a short delay shall not be the reason to disbelieve the case of prosecution.”

The Court further held that the absence of external injury on medical examination 20 days after the incident did not make her account false, as the doctor said any injury would have healed by then, and that the call details included the Section 65B certificate, so the objection failed. It held that the contradictions marked in cross-examination of other witnesses were not material to discredit the victim’s evidence.

It also rejected the defence of enmity, noting that the son’s evidence did not deny the molestation, that he was admittedly inimical to his mother, and that the incident was a fact known to the victim alone. It held that the Special Court was right in finding the accused guilty, found no reason to interfere with the sentence given the nature and seriousness of the offences, and dismissed the appeal.

The order suspending sentence and granting bail was cancelled, and the accused was directed to surrender before the Special Court to undergo the sentence forthwith, failing which the Special Court is to execute the sentence.

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Mr. Balamurali K.P., Mr. Manu Tom, Mr. Renil Iqubal K., Ms. Haripriya M., Mr. Amal C. Peter, Mr. Mohammed Ashiq R.S. and Mr. M.B. Soori, Advocates.

For the Respondent: Mr. M.A. Shihab, Public Prosecutor.

Case Title: Muhammed vs. State of Kerala, Crl. Appeal No. 2143 of 2024, decided on 12.10.2026

[Read Judgment]