Solar Scam | Complainant Challenges MP KC Venugopal's Acquittal In Sexual Assault Case: Kerala High Court Admits Plea, Issues Notice

The complainant had approached the High Court against the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram which had accepted the “closure report” from CBI and dismissed the petition filed by the victim.

The victim has alleged offences under Section 354 (assault or criminal force to outrage the modesty of women) and 376 (punishment for rape) of IPC against Venugopal.

The allegation was that the complainant was subjected to rape against her consent on May 24, 2012, at Rose House in Trivandrum. It was alleged that CBI filed a closure report in the investigation stating that there was no evidence to prove the commission of an offence against Venugopal.

“The CBI has filed a closure report in the investigation stating that there are no materials in this case. CBI in its closure report says that the victim had produced a hard disc which allegedly contained the video graph of the rape committed on the victim and this hard disc when send for forensic examination no video as alleged was found. It is further contended by CBI that the saree worn by the victim at the time of the alleged rape was produced by her and the same when examined at the lab no trace of semen or blood was found. On these two grounds the CBI found the case of the victim as baseless.”, the petition stated.

The complainant further alleged that the closure report filed by the CBI makes it apparent that the investigation was conducted to favour the MP and to show the complainant was a person with a criminal background.

“The investigating agency has caused prejudice to the complainant/victim. The attempt of the investigating agency was only to show that the complainant/victim is a person with criminal background and is of shady character.”, the petition stated.

During the admission, Former Madras High Court Judge and Senior Advocate S Nagamuthu instructed by Advocates M. Vivek and P.V. Anoop appeared on behalf of the complainant and stated that dismissing the complaint of the victim based on the closure report filed by CBI was an abuse of process of law.

It was argued that the protest petition filed by the complainant cannot be dismissed without examining the complainant or other witnesses on oath. It was argued that the statement of the complainant and witnesses should have been considered by the Trial Court and it was not for the committal court to dismiss the case based on a closure report.

Special Prosecutor for CBI, Senior Advocate Dr. K.P. Satheesan assisted by Advocate Bharath Mohan submitted that a detailed report from CBI has to be obtained and that they were awaiting further instructions.

Case number: Crl.Rev.Pet 1073/ 2023

Case name: XXXXXX Vs K. C. VENUGOPAL