Unexplained Long Delay Fatal To Prosecution: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case Filed After 16-Yr Delay

“Law is well settled that delay is having significance and the same is decisive, unless the delay is properly explained. Here no proper explanation for the long delay. When the delay comes to 16 years in disclosing the same, after continuing the relationship for 16 years, the same is fatal and the same would stand in the way of prosecution, since possibility of false implication is very much discernible. Thus the allegation of rape made after 16 years is prima facie not believable because of the long delay and such relationship is to be considered as consensual in nature.”

The allegation is that the petitioner subjected the de facto complainant, a married lady to rape in the year 2001. Crime was registered against the petitioner after a delay of 16 years alleging the commission of offences under Sections 323 and 376 of the IPC.

The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the First Information Statement was given in 2017 only and thereafter FIR was registered. It is also stated that even though an FIR was registered against four persons, the final report was filed against the petitioner only. It is also alleged that the petitioner borrowed 20 lakh rupees from the de facto complainant during the relationship which itself indicates that their sexual relationship was consensual. It is also stated that the matter has been settled between the parties now.

The Court was considering whether disclosure of sexual assault after a delay of 16 years was fatal to the prosecution.

The Court noted that the de facto complainant continued the relationship with the petitioner even after the sexual intercourse in 2001. It is also found that the petitioner has borrowed money from the de facto complainant during various occasions and he owed her around 20 lakhs rupees at the time of filing in the First Information Statement in 2017.

The Court said, “ That apart, the allegation of rape was raised with ulterior motives, particularly when money from the accused was allegedly due to the defacto complainant.”

The Court stated that the de facto complainant has no grievance now and affidavits have also been filed stating that the issue has been settled between the parties.

As such, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner were quashed.

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocate V Sethunath

Counsel for Respondents: Advocate Obeid Abdul Majeed, Senior Public Prosecutor Renjit George

Case Number: CRL.MC NO. 8788 OF 2022

Case Title: Biju P Vidya @Monai v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 554