Kerala High Court quashes rape case after 16-year delay

“The law is clear that delay is significant and is crucial unless the delay is properly explained. Here, there is no proper explanation for the long delay. If the delay in disclosure is 16 years after the relationship has continued for 16 years, it is fatal and would come in the way of prosecution as the possibility of false imputation is very much apparent. Therefore, due to the long delay, the allegation of rape made after 16 years is prima facie not credible and such relationship is to be regarded as consensual.”

The allegation is that the appellant raped the actual complainant, a married woman, in the year 2001. The case was framed against the appellant after a delay of 16 years as he is accused of committing offences under Sections 323 and 376 of the IPC.

The plaintiff's counsel submitted that the first information statement was filed only in 2017 and an FIR was registered thereafter. It is also stated that though an FIR was registered against four persons, the final report was filed only against the plaintiff. It is also alleged that the plaintiff borrowed Rs 20 lakh from the de facto plaintiff during the relationship, indicating that their sexual relationship was consensual. It is also stated that the matter has since been settled between the parties.

The court considered whether the disclosure of a sexual assault after a delay of 16 years would be fatal to the prosecution.

The court found that the de facto plaintiff continued the relationship with the plaintiff even after the sexual intercourse in 2001. It was also found that the plaintiff borrowed money from the de facto plaintiff on various occasions and owed her about Rs 20 lakhs at the time of filing the first information return in 2017.

The court stated: “ Furthermore, the allegation of rape was made with ulterior motives, particularly since the accused allegedly owed money to the actual complainant.”

The Court found that the de facto plaintiff currently had no grounds for appeal and that affidavits had been filed indicating that the matter had been settled between the parties.

The criminal proceedings against the complainant were therefore discontinued.

Counsel for the Applicant: Advocate V Sethunath

Legal counsel for the accused: Attorney Obeid Abdul Majeed, Senior Public Prosecutor Renjit George

Case number: CRL.MC NO. 8788 OF 2022

Case Title: Biju P Vidya @Monai v. State of Kerala

Quote: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 554