Delay In Lodging FIR In Sexual Offences Against Woman To Be Considered With Different Yardstick: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court observed that the in case of delay in lodging the FIR in sexual offences against girls and woman has to be considered with a different yardstick as when a sexual offence is committed against a girl or woman, the prosecutrix and her family often remain deeply concerned about their honour and social reputation.

The Petitioner was charged for the offence under Section 376 IPC, however, he was convicted under Section 354 IPC for outraging the modesty of women.

The Bench of Justice M.B. Snehalatha observed, “When a sexual offence is committed against a girl or woman, the prosecutrix and her family often remain deeply concerned about their honour and social reputation. As a result, before approaching the police station, they may hesitate or take time to decide whether to lodge a complaint weighing the consequences and stigma associated with such disclosure. Delay in lodging the FIR in sexual offences against girls and woman has to be considered with a different yardstick."

Advocate Mansoor B.H represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Sanal P Raj represented the Respondents.

Case Brief

The Petitioner faced allegations that victim girl aged 14 years, who was a neighbour of the accused, had gone to the house of the accused to watch TV programme, but he dragged her to his bedroom and committed rape on her and thereby he was charged for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC.

However, the trial court found the accused not guilty of the offence under Section 376 IPC and he was acquitted for the offence under Section 354 IPC and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Later, in appeal against the order of trial court, the Session Court also confirmed the conviction.

The Petitioner contended that there are material discrepancies in the testimony of the victim girl and her parents regarding the incident and therefore their evidence is not reliable. Further, it was also submitted that since the trial court found him not guilty of the offence under Section 376 IPC and acquitted him of the said charge, he cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 354 IPC based on the very same evidence.

While the State contended that there was no illegality or error in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 354 IPC. It was also submitted that by invoking Section 222 Cr.P.C the Court can convict and sentence the accused for the minor offence proved, though the accused is not charged for the minor offence.

Court’s Analysis

The Court noted that the findings of the trial court and the appellate court that the accused was not guilty of the offence under Section 376 IPC has become final. Thus, the question before the Court was whether the trial court and the appellate court were right in finding that the accused was guilty of the offence under Section 354 IPC.

“The trial court was right in believing the consistent version of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly dragged her to his bedroom and made her to lie down on the floor and undressed her. There is no reason to disbelieve the version of minor prosecutrix that the accused dragged her to his bedroom and made her to lie down on the floor and undressed her”, the Court said.

With regard to the question whether the whether a person charged under Section 376 of IPC can be convicted for a lesser offence under Section 354 IPC, the Court opined, “In the case in hand, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing all the ingredients of the offence under Section 354 IPC against the accused. The offence committed by the accused squarely covers all the ingredients of Section 354 IPC. Therefore, the trial court and the appellate court were right in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 354 IPC and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the said concurrent finding of conviction.”

While considering the question whether a person charged under Section 376 of IPC can be convicted for a lesser offence under Section 354 IPC in the absence of a specific charge for the latter, the Kerala High Court court observed that the the trial court and the appellate court were right in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 354 IPC and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the said concurrent finding of conviction.

Accordingly, the Revision Petition was dismissed.

Cause Title: Chandran V. State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:49504)

Click here to read/download Order