No Parent Would File False Case Alleging Rape Of Unmarried Daughter: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court recently observed that in normal human conduct, no parent would lodge a false case alleging that their unmarried daughter was raped.The Division Bench comprising Justice P B Suresh Kumar and Justice M B Snehalatha thus upheld the conviction of a 27-year-old man for raping and sexually abusing the victim and condoned the six-month delay in filing the FIR, given that...
The Kerala High Court recently observed that in normal human conduct, no parent would lodge a false case alleging that their unmarried daughter was raped.
The Division Bench comprising Justice P B Suresh Kumar and Justice M B Snehalatha thus upheld the conviction of a 27-year-old man for raping and sexually abusing the victim and condoned the six-month delay in filing the FIR, given that the victim was a 13-year-old vulnerable teenager.
Rejecting the defence of the accused that the parents filed a false case against him to stop their love affair, the Court said
“No parents would come forward with a case of rape just to make a humiliating situation against the honour of the family. Why should a girl of 13 and her family lay false complaint against a person alleging rape without any rhyme or reason and invite dishonour and shame to the family? In the normal course of human conduct, no parents would come forward with a false case that their unmarried daughter was raped.”
The present appeal was preferred by the accused against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence imposed under Sections 450 (house trespass to commit offence punishable with life imprisonment), 376 (punishment for rape) and 392 (punishment for robbery) of the IPC. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and fine under Section 376, and 5 years of imprisonment and fine each under Section 450 and 392.
As per prosecution, the accused got acquainted with the 13-year-old victim who was studying in 9th standard through Facebook and she interacted with him under the impression that he was a senior student in her school. It is alleged that the victim ignored the accused on knowing that he was not a senior student and rejected his romantic advances. It is alleged that the accused criminally trespassed into her house and committed rape in March 2012. It is alleged that the accused sexually assaulted the victim from March 2012 to September 2012 by threatening her and also committed robbery at her house.
The accused contended that he was in a romantic relationship with the victim and claimed that her parents had filed a false case against him upon knowing about their relationship. He alleged that there was a huge delay in lodging the FIS and the statements of the victim and her parents are inconsistent and unreliable.
The Court found that the accused took gold ornaments from the victim's house and pledged them. It also found that the ATM of card of the victim's mother was seized from the pocket of the accused on his arrest.
The Court further noted that the non-production of the mobile phone is irrelevant, as the victim's age makes their romantic relationship illegal. Court said, “It is to be borne in mind that even if there was romantic relationship between the accused and the prosecutrix who was a minor aged 13, and even if there were frequent phone calls and chats between them and even if she had invited him to her house, it does not legalise the crime committed by the accused against the minor prosecutrix.”
The Court found that accused had threatened to publish explicit pictures of the victim and to kill her mother and brother. It thus stated that there is sufficient reason to believe that the victim was scared to disclose about the incident to anyone.
“In the normal course of human conduct, a teenage girl would not like to give publicity to the traumatic experience she had undergone and would feel terribly embarrassed in relation to the incident to narrate her teachers and others overpowered by a feeling of shame and her natural inclination would be to avoid talking about it to anyone, lest the family name and honour is brought into controversy. If a victim of rape is threatened by the offender that if she discloses the incident, he would publish her nude photos and would make the incident public etc. would really put the girl in a traumatic situation and in such circumstances, there is nothing unusual in victim concealing the incident even to her parents', stated the Court.
The Court noted that the testimony of the victim, her parents and doctor are reliable and established the prosecution case of rape.
The Court stated that the prosecution has established that the accused criminally trespassed into the victim's house and committed rape upon her and sexually abused her several times.
The Court thus upheld the conviction of the accused under Sections 450, 376 and 392 of the IPC. The Court modified the punishment imposed under Section 376 to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fifty thousand rupees fine instead of life imprisonment.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed in part.
Counsel for Appellant: Advocate P K Varghese
Counsel for Respondents: Public Prosecutor Bindu O V, Special Government Pleader Ambika Devi
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 531
Case Title: Ratheesh @ Akku v State of Kerala
Case Number: Crl.Appeal No.886 of 2017