Here’s why Kerala High Court upheld acquittal of rape accused father

Key findings in the order are as follows.

1. The survivor did not fall into the category of a sterling witness in view of the serious inconsistency in her evidence and the discrepancies with the medical evidence.

2. Referring to the trial court’s order, the bench noted the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out.

3. The doctor was stated to have testified that the survivor claimed before her that she was subjected to rape by her father but she did not notice any external injury on her intimate parts.

4. The medical certificate mentions no evidence of recent vaginal penetration.

5. No illegality/perversity or glaring mistake in the trial court judgment.

6. The order noted “if a reasonable doubt arises regarding the guilt of the accused, benefit of doubt cannot be withheld from the accused”.

7. Findings and conclusions arrived at by the trial court appear to be reasonable and plausible.

8. Appeal filed by the state not maintainable and the same is dismissed

Arguments

Senior public prosecutor Neema T V contested the trial court’s verdict, saying it had “miserably failed” to appreciate the evidence of the prosecution in its correct perspective and acquitted the accused against the “weight of evidence, facts, and circumstances of the case”.

She argued as the perpetrator of the sexual offence was the father, the crime was more grave and fell within the purview of “rarest of rare” category.

She has also submitted that the sole testimony of the survivor was sufficient to sustain conviction, without any corroboration, pointing out that the trial court was wrong in giving a finding that there was a possibility of false implication of the father.

The counsel appearing for the father submitted that the trial court had appreciated the evidence on record in its correct perspective and arrived at a proper conclusion.

The evidence put forth on behalf of the survivor was “contradictory and inconsistent” with that of the medical officer who examined the survivor, the counsel added.

The counsel, therefore, pointed out to the bench that the conviction couldn’t be legally sustained solely on the basis of the evidence of the survivor.

Background

According to the 12-year-old survivor, her father sexually abused her for a prolonged period of time. The first incident occurred while she was in class 1. She was later subjected to sexual abuse by her father while she was studying in class 5.

It came on record that though the mother had knowledge about the sexual abuse by her husband, she did not report the matter to the authorities. The case stems from the survivor’s complaint lodged with the local police on February 23, 2023.

A special court, among other provisions, framed charges under Sections 376(2)(f) (a relative, guardian or teacher of, or a person in a position of trust or authority towards the woman, commits rape) , 376(2)(n) (commits rape repeatedly on the same woman) and 376AB (commits rape on a woman under twelve years of age) of IPC and Sections 6 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault), 10 (punishment for offences), 19 (mandatory reporting of known or suspected sexual offences by any person, including the child) among other provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, after hearing the defence counsel and the prosecutor.