SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 55404

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
JIFFIN L. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl. 9404/2024



Advocates:
LITHIN THOMAS

Consent in relationships must reflect clear, unequivocal willingness, especially in the absence of false promises.

Headnote:This judgment pertains to a bail application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The petitioner, an accused in a case involving serious allegations, argued for bail asserting the relationship with the victim was consensual and without force. The court emphasized that for a false promise of marriage to establish criminal liability, there must be a direct nexus to such a promise. Evidence of a prolonged consensual relationship raised doubts about the prosecution's claims. Consequently, bail was granted under stringent conditions.

O R D E R

This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS ).

2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.439/2024 of Maranallor Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 354, 354A (1)(i), 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The Prosecution allegation is that the alleged victim is having an age of 23 years and she is a final year student of Law. The petitioner as well as the victim are the members of a same church and the petitioner had shown intimacy to the alleged victim and they fell in love. They frequently send messages and the petitioner informed that he is intend to marry her and she also informed him that she is also willing to marry him. It is alleged that the petitioner compelled the victim to spent time with him in hotel room. On 20.02.2023 due to the compulsion from the petitioner she accompanied him in his car to Chitharal Rock temple at Tamil Nadu. The car was driven by the petitioner, and during the journey he stopped it before reaching Kiliyode. Thereafter he had sexually assaulted her inspite of her resistance. He removed her dress and touched on her private parts. Then they continued their journey and stopped the car at Kaliyikkavila and did the same act and he put honey over her private parts and applied his mouth. She changed the dress and wore a Pink tea shirt and black pants which were kept with her. Then the petitioner dropped her at CSI Law college at Parasala where she is pursuing her studies. Thereafter at 11.00 am she came to Kinattumukku bus stop and they continued their journey to Chitharal Rock temple. Before reaching the park, the petitioner did the sexual acts again and he put ice cream over her private parts and applied his mouth. When they reached at a park the petitioner again assaulted the defato complainant. While returning from the rock temple when they reached Udiyankulangara, they again stopped the car and the petitioner did the sexual acts and applied the balance honey over her private parts took photographs. On 01.03.2023, the petitioner did the act of alleged sexual assault with the defacto complainant. Even after they continued chatting and maintained good relationship. On 03.04.2023 the petitioner allegedly asked her to delete the chats. When the defacto complainant further discussed about the marriage, the petitioner withdraws from his promise. On 09.09.2024 the petitioner tried to kiss the defacto complainant at Thampanoor KSRTC bus stand and their relationship continued till the date.

Thereby, the petitioner committed the above offences. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.

5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a false case foisted against the petitioner. It is submitted that on 11.02.2023 onwards and the defacto complainant were friends and there was continuous relationship between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant wants to marry the petitioner immediately. But, the petitioner requested her to wait till his elder brother's marriage is over. But, the victim went to the work place of the petitioner and also to the house of the petitioner and agitated. It is submitted that the offence is not attracted because the victim is a major girl.

6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that there is a promise to marry and thereafter, there is a sexual intercourse.

7. This Court considered the contention of the petitioner and Public Prosecutor. This Court also perused the FIS given by the victim. I do not want to make any observation about the same. Admittedly, the prosecution case is that, there was a promise to marry and thereafter, the petitioner had sexual intercourse with the victim. The relationship between the petitioner and the defacto complainant started from 11.02.2023 onwards.

8. The Apex Court in Mahesh Damu Khare V State of Maharashtra , [2024 (

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top