1. Conviction under Section 376 IPC — Rape of a minor — Appeal against sentence. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 1505
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ranjan Gogoi, CJI., Sanjay Kishan Kaul, K.M. Joseph, JJ.
P J Mathew - Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1654 of 2010
Decided On : 04-10-2018
Important Points
The main legal point established is that the prosecution can succeed in proving a forcible act despite delay in lodging the FIR and close relation between the families, by considering the totality of the circumstances.
Subject
Criminal Law - Sexual Offenses
Act Referred
Headnote
Section 376 IPC - Sexual Assault - The court held that the prosecution succeeded in proving that the act was a forcible act and not consensual, despite the delay in lodging the FIR and the close relation between the families.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecutrix, aged 16 years and 3 months, reported the incident of sexual assault to her mother after discovering she was pregnant. The delay in filing the FIR was due to the reluctance to spoil the reputation of the accused's family.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution succeeded in proving that the act was a forcible act and not consensual, despite the delay in lodging the FIR and the close relation between the families. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant were upheld.
Issues: The cardinal issue was whether the initial act was consensual or a forcible act, considering the delay in lodging the FIR and the close relation between the families.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the totality of the circumstances, including the delay in lodging the FIR, the close relation between the families, and the explanation given by the prosecutrix and her mother for the delay, to conclude that the act was a forcible act and not consensual.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant were upheld.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
Raghenth Basant, Adv., Namita Wali, Adv., Liz Mathew, Adv., K N Balgopal, Adv., G Prakash, Adv., Jishnu M L, Adv., Priyanka Prakash, Adv., Beena Prakash, Adv.
Raghenth Basant, Adv., Namita Wali, Adv., Liz Mathew, Adv., K N Balgopal, Adv., G Prakash, Adv., Jishnu M L, Adv., Priyanka Prakash, Adv., Beena Prakash, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Whether the act was consensual or forcible — Impact of delay in lodging the FIR and motive for reporting. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Delay in FIR explained by family relations and desire for normalcy — Solitary nature of the incident indicates a forcible act rather than consent. (Para 5 )
4. Delay in reporting sexual offenses may be excused by family relations, and a solitary act suggests lack of consent. (Para 5 )
5. Appeal dismissed — Conviction and sentence upheld. (Para 6 )
6. Does a delay in filing an FIR in sexual offense cases automatically imply consent or falsity?
No. Delay can be explained by the close relationship between the families and the victim's desire to forget the incident and lead a normal life. (Para 5 )
7. How does the frequency of the sexual act influence the determination of consent?
A solitary incident, rather than repeated acts, supports the conclusion that the act was forcible and not consensual. (Para 5 )
8. Does the reporting of a crime only after a financial dispute invalidate the prosecution's case?
Not necessarily. While the motive for reporting may be questioned, the cardinal issue remains whether the initial act was consensual or forcible, taking into account the totality of circumstances. (Para 5 )
ORDER
1. Aggrieved by his conviction under Section 376 IPC and sentence of RI for seven years, the accused-appellant has filed the present appeal.
2. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
3. The prosecutrix PW-1 was at the relevant point of time 16 years and 3 months. The accused was a neighbour and in fact the wife of the accused and the mother of the prosecutrix were friends. These are the facts on which no dispute has been raised by the accused.
4. The incident happened on 11.01.1996. It is only in the month of May/June-1996 that the prosecutrix reported the incident to her mother as she was missing her cycle. The mother (PW-2) took her to the doctor who confirmed that the proseutrix was five months pregnant. The FIR was filed in the month of July-1996 and the explanation for the delay is that the prosecutrix and her family, including PW-2, did not want to spoil the reputation or bring disharmony in the family of the accused who were well-known to them. The complaint was filed only after the accused refused to provide funds for carrying out the abortion.
5. Notwithstanding the delay in lodging the FIR and the admission made in the statement of the mother that the FIR was filed only when the accused had failed to pay the cost of the abortion, the cardinal issue that has to be decided is whether the initial act was consensual or a forcible act. The close relation between the families and the explanation given by the prosecutrix and her mother for the delay in lodging the FIR cannot be brushed aside. It is an incident that the prosecutrix, as stated in her evidence, wanted to forget and lead a normal life. The fact that there was a solitary incident and was not followed by repeated acts also goes against any conclusion that the act was consensual.
6. In the totality of the circumstances, we are inclined to take a view that the prosecution has succeeded in proving that it was a forcible act and not consensual. The appeal, therefore, has to fail. It is, accordingly, dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant is upheld.
