Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
Bibin – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor – Respondent
ORDER :
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J.
Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.343/2025 of Kothamangalam Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under sections 332(b) and 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023.
2. According to the prosecution, on 19.11.2024 at around 2.30 P.M the accused trespassed into the rented house of the defacto complainant where she was residing with her family and raped her and thereby committed the offences alleged.
3. Sri. Abhilash S. Francis, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the entire prosecution allegations are false and that the petitioner has no involvement in the crime. It is further stated that on 19.11.2024, the petitioner was not even in Ernakulam District as he was in Perinthalmanna in connection with his work as a CCTV Technician at the ABC Study Centre, Perinthalmanna. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per Annexure A4 train ticket, it is evident that petitioner travelled from Angadipuram Railway Station to Thrissur at 8.23 pm and the electronic reservation slip of his journey from Thrissur to Aluva on 20.11.2024 is also an indication that the serious allegation rais
The court emphasized the need for a balance between the rights of the accused and the victim, ruling that custodial interrogation was not warranted based on the circumstances indicating a probable co....
The court ruled that consensual relationships turning sour do not justify rape allegations or automatic custodial interrogation, emphasizing the need for substantial evidence before arrest.
A consensual relationship should not automatically be interpreted as rape on the basis of a broken promise of marriage, emphasizing the need to consider context and intentions behind consent.
The court held that mere assertions by the State regarding the need for custodial interrogation are insufficient; a stronger evidentiary basis is required to justify such measures.
The court clarified that consensual sexual relations do not always amount to rape, emphasizing individual examination of circumstances in cases of alleged deception.
Consent in relationships must be scrutinized for coercion or misconception, distinguishing consensual acts from rape.
Consent in adult relationships is pivotal; allegations of immoral conduct do not equate to criminal offenses under the specified section of the IPC.
Consensual sexual relations based on the assurance of marriage do not amount to rape, and thus, the accused is entitled to bail.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; conditions imposed to ensure cooperation with the investigation and prevent absconding.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
