Complainant Being Social Worker Should Have Complained Against Sexual Assault Without Much Delay: Kerala HC Stays Proceedings In Rape Case

Justice A. Badharudeen observed:

“The defacto complainant being a social worker ought to have raised the complaint of sexual assault committed on her on 31.12.2019 on the very next day or without much delay, if such an occurrence happened or if happened without her consent.”

The complainant is a social worker. It was submitted that another activist, Ambika asked her to join the Council for various Human Rights Organisations and the petitioner-accused was the president of such an organisation.

It was submitted that to attend one of the meetings of the organisation, she stayed at the petitioner's place and he allegedly raped her.

The petitioner alleged that the complainant has a habit of filing complaints against people with whom she has any issues.

It was stated that a week before filing this complaint, she had filed another complaint against him and Ambika. This was after the date on which the incident is alleged to have happened.

It was further stated that no allegation of rape was made and a complaint was filed against the complainant by Ambika, to counter which she had allegedly filed the present complaint.

In a writ filed by the complainant, the Station House Officer of Anchalammoodu Police Station filed a report regarding the crimes related to the complainant.

The report said that the complainant had made an allegation against the petitioner and Ambika that they forced her to have sexual intercourse with some people and had the help of local auto drivers and goondas.

This complaint was disposed of in the station itself because the police concluded on enquiry that the complaint was filed as the petitioner and Ambika denied her membership into their organisation as they thought she did not have a good character.

The report also details various other instances where she had filed criminal complaints against others. The Court however held that the fact that she filed complaints against various persons would not be a reason to disbelieve her.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Advocates A. N. Rajan Babu, P. Gopalakrishnan

Counsel for the Respondents: Senior Public Prosecutor Adv. Renjit George, Adv. K. Shaj

Case No:Crl. M. C 5412 of 2020

Case Title: K. S. Sivarajan v State of Kerala and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 508