Facts of the Case

The case arose from allegations against the petitioner, who was accused of kidnapping a minor, his close relative, from the custody of her parents and sexually assaulting her on January 26, 2023, near Muttom, Malankara Dam area. The charges included offenses under Sections 363, 354A(1)(ii), 341, 376(1)(3), and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and relevant sections of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner forcibly restrained the victim, sexually assaulted her, and threatened her with death if she disclosed the incident.

Contentions of the Petitioner

The petitioner filed a discharge petition under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, arguing that the case was fabricated due to family animosity orchestrated by his estranged wife. He pointed out contradictions in the victim’s statements and emphasized medical evidence showing an intact hymen, asserting that it negated the claim of penetrative sexual assault. The petitioner sought the court’s intervention to quash the trial court’s order dismissing his discharge petition.

Contentions of the Respondent

The prosecution opposed the petition, asserting that the victim’s testimony and other evidence prima facie established the petitioner’s culpability. They contended that the medical report alone could not disprove the occurrence of penetrative sexual assault. The prosecution further argued that the circumstances and the victim’s statements warranted a trial.

Court’s Observations

The High Court observed that the prosecution had presented prima facie evidence supporting the allegations, including the victim’s testimony and other corroborative materials. Regarding the petitioner’s reliance on the medical report, the court held:

“The contention raised by the petitioner that the medical evidence would show that the hymen is intact, also would not by itself sufficient to hold that there was no penetrative sexual intercourse since it is the settled law that rupture of hymen is not a mandate to find penetrative sexual assault or coitus.”

The court found no evidence supporting the petitioner’s claim of animosity-driven fabrication and held that such matters required examination during the trial.

Court’s Order

The Kerala High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition, upholding the trial court’s decision to deny discharge. The court emphasized the need for a full trial to evaluate the prosecution’s case comprehensively. It directed the registry to forward a copy of the order to the jurisdictional court for further proceedings.

Credits: Deeksha Rai