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 consensual relationship.

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 raised against him are totally false. The learned counsel further submitted that the tower location of the petitioner on his mobile phone on the date of incident will also clearly prove that he is totally innocent and that the complaint registered by the defacto complainant is false.

4. In order to buttress his contentions, the learned counsel relied upon Annexure A6 and Annexure A7 chat history of the petitioner with the victim on 19.11.2024 and 20.11.2024 respectively indicating that, both of them were at different places during the relevant time. According to the learned counsel the further WhatsApp chat between the petitioner and the defacto complainant on 26.11.2024 and 12.01.2025 also indicates that she had even invited him to come home and they were even thinking about a marriage, all of which pointing towards a consensual relationship, if any. According to the learned counsel, even though the incident as alleged had not occurred, still, at the most it can only be a consensual relationship and since the husband of the defacto complainant saw the messages between them, in order to wriggle out of the difficult situation, the defacto complainant raised the allegation of rape against the petitioner. The learned counsel submitted that the entire prosecution case is false and the petitioner is willing to abide by any conditions and fully co-operate with the investigation.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor upon instructions submitted that the chat history stated to have occurred between the petitioner and the defacto complainant is a matter for verification and without custodial interrogation, the materials cannot be unearthed.

6. By order dated 08.04.2025, a learned Single Judge of this Court had directed the Public Prosecutor to get instructions regarding Annexure A1 to Annexure A3. A reading of the F.I. statement of the defacto complainant indicates that she had acquaintance with the petitioner for a long time and that he had studied as a junior to her in the college. It is also stated that they were good friends for long and that he had even come home for a friendly chat with her. However, according to the defacto complainant on 19.11.2024 around 2.30 P.M., when he came to her house where she was alone and when she went into the bed room, he caught her from behind and thereafter sexually assaulted her. She had not informed this to her husband or anyone due to fear. It was only on 27.02.2025, i.e., after a period of four months, that she filed the complaint.

7. On the same day, i.e., 27.02.2025, the defacto complainant filed two other F.I.R's against two other persons also, one of which involves an allegation of rape on 20.07.2022 and another case of sexual assault as well.

8. The defacto complainant is a married lady with a child. In her complaint itself s