Court confirms 10-year imprisonment for accused under Sections 354A(1)(i) and 376(1) IPC, emphasizing reliability of victim's testimony and corroborative call records
In a significant judgment delivered on October 12, 2026, the Kerala High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Muhammed, the accused in a sexual assault case involving an elderly woman, thereby upholding his conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Thrissur.
The appellant was found guilty of offences punishable under Sections 354A(1)(i) (sexual harassment) and 376(1) (rape) of the Indian Penal Code. The incident occurred on October 8, 2022, when the accused allegedly reached the victim's residence and subjected her to penetrative sexual assault by inserting his finger into her vagina, as well as molesting her breasts and anus.
The victim, a 74-year-old woman, initially misstated the date of occurrence as October 7, 2022, in her First Information Statement (FIS) and initial court testimony. However, she later corrected the date to October 8, 2022, explaining that the initial error was due to memory lapse. The defense contended this as a material improvement that should discredit the prosecution. The Court, however, disagreed, holding that such correction was not substantial enough to undermine the case, especially since an additional statement had already rectified the date and call detail records (CDRs) confirmed contact between the victim and accused on the corrected date.
The Court also addressed the delay of 19 days in lodging the FIR. The victim explained that the delay was due to consultations with her son abroad and other family members. The Court found this explanation reasonable, noting that short delays in sexual offence reporting do not automatically negate the prosecution's case.
Medical evidence was tendered through a doctor who examined the victim 20 days post-incident and found no external injuries. The Court ruled that absence of visible injuries was not fatal to the prosecution's case, as any injuries would likely have healed by the time of examination.
The prosecution's case was further bolstered by call detail records admissible under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, which showed three calls between the accused and the victim on the date of the incident. The defense's objections regarding the admissibility of this electronic evidence were rejected since the required certification was present.
Contradictions raised by the defense during cross-examination of certain witnesses were deemed immaterial by the Court and insufficient to discredit the victim's direct testimony. Additionally, the defense's claim of enmity based on property disputes was found inadequate to negate the charges.
Consequently, the Court confirmed the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 for the offence of rape and 3 years with a fine of Rs. 25,000 for sexual harassment, with sentences to run concurrently. The accused's bail was cancelled, and he was directed to surrender forthwith.
This judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to safeguarding the dignity and rights of elderly victims in sexual offence cases, emphasizing a holistic approach to evidence evaluation, including victim testimony, electronic corroboration, and medical reports.
Bottom Line:
Sexual offences - Conviction can be sustained on the trustworthy testimony of an aged victim despite initial mistake regarding date of occurrence, where the date was subsequently corrected, delay in FIR was satisfactorily explained, call detail records with Section 65B certificate corroborated the prosecution case, and absence of external injuries after 20 days was not fatal.
Statutory provision(s):
Indian Penal Code Sections 354A(1)(i), 376(1); Evidence Act Section 65B; Code of Criminal Procedure Section 164, Section 428, Section 357(1)(b)
Muhammed v. State of Kerala, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3001097
