Back
Knife to the Belly, Threats of Nude Photos: Kerala HC Confirms Rape Conviction, But Cuts Jail Time
In a chilling tale of predation on an 11-year-old girl left alone at home, the has upheld the conviction of Anil N under Sections 450 (), 354 (), and 377 () of the . Justice A. Badharudeen, in a judgment delivered on , modified the trial court's seven-year sentence under Section 377 to five years rigorous imprisonment, while confirming the rest. This ruling reinforces that Section 377 remains robustly applicable to non-consensual acts involving minors, even after the 's 2018 decriminalisation of consensual adult same-sex relations.
A Stranger's Knock Turns into Nightmare
The incident unfolded on , in Chunangad, Ottapalam. The victim, PW1, an 11-year-old girl (birthdate confirmed via school records as ), was home alone watching TV around 1-2 PM. Her parents were tending to a newborn calf and gathering hay, siblings elsewhere. A man—later identified as the 28-year-old accused, son of locals Parukutty and Krishnan Ezhuthachan—approached pretending to inquire about buying a bicycle.
He returned swiftly, rushed into her room, gagged and bound her with her father's cloth and his own, stripped her, cuddled and kissed her forcibly, squeezed her private parts, beat her, spat on her face, and forced his penis into her mouth despite resistance. Brandishing a knife on her belly, he threatened to kill her father and circulate nude photos online. He hid under the cot when her father returned but escaped via the kitchen, casually chatting with the family later.
Terrified, the girl revealed fragments to her sister, who told their mother (PW2), but it was dismissed initially amid cow-care chaos. Pain led to hospital visits that night and the next day to Taluk and Valluvanad Hospitals, where scans and injections were given. The accused reappeared at school and hospital, flashing his phone with threats. Only on , after admission and interrogation, did she fully disclose to doctors (Ext.P1) and police (Ext.P2 FIS, FIR ). The trial court convicted in ; the accused appealed.
Defence Pokes Holes in Timeline and Evidence, Prosecution Banks on Child's Trauma
The appellant's counsel argued no Section 450 liability without a proven life-term offence under Section 377, claiming PW1's testimony lacked "" proof—mere touching, not penetration. They highlighted the 15-day FIR delay (incident Dec 12, FIR Jan 4), an unproduced Vanitha Cell statement predating Ext.P1, and no medical evidence of assault (Ext.P5). Fabricated accusations were implied.
The Public Prosecutor countered with PW1's consistent, unshaken testimony—supported by parents PW2 and PW3—detailing threats explaining delay, typical in child sexual assault cases. Medical negativity was dismissed as due to delayed exam. Victim's age via PW8's Ext.P6 proved minority. (Ext.P7) and identification of innerwear (MO1-2) bolstered the case.
Decoding Section 377 Post-: Minors Aren't Exempt
Justice Badharudeen dissected pre-amendment sections: 377's " against nature" (life or 10 years), with penetration sufficient. Citing
Anwesh Pokkuluri v. Union of India
(2018) 10 SCC 1—where SC struck down consensual adult homosexuality but upheld non-consensual and bestiality—the court clarified:
"the said dictum of law would not apply when the victim is a minor."
PW1's evidence of forced oral penetration sealed Section 377.
For Section 450, proven Section 377 (life-eligible) triggered
"
."
Section 354 fitted the
. Delay justified by knife threats and fear.
Key Observations
"She categorically deposed that the accused forcefully penetrated his penis into her mouth after untying the cloth put around when she resisted to open her mouth. This categorical evidence established that there was to find the commission of offence under Section 377 of ."
"Thus by the above decision the Apex Court held that the consensual sexual relationship between two adults... is not an offence under Section 377 of . But the said dictum of law would not apply when the victim is a minor."
"Considering the evidence of PW1, a delayed examination of the victim may not show much evidence for sexual assault."
"PW1 during her examination identified MO1 and MO2 as the inner outfits worn by her on the date of occurrence. Even though PW1 was subjected to searching cross examination, nothing elicited either to shake or to make her testimony unbelievable."
Mercy on Sentence, But No Escape from Bars
The appeal succeeded partially: conviction confirmed, but Section 377 RI reduced to five years (fines intact: Rs.25,000/450, Rs.50,000 each for 354/377; defaults added). Bail cancelled; accused to surrender forthwith.
Echoing headlines like
"S.377
Continues To Apply In Cases Involving Minors:
Upholds Conviction For Oral Sex,"
this affirms prosecutorial reliance on child victim testimony in assault cases, prioritising trauma over timelines. Future cases may cite it to sustain Section 377 against minors, shielding the vulnerable amid evolving LGBTQ+ rights.
