The High Court of Kerala has upheld the conviction and 10-year prison sentence of a 61-year-old man found guilty of raping a 73-year-old woman under the guise of performing spiritual healing. Justice A. Badharudeen rejected the appeal filed by the accused, Muhammed, dismissing claims that a discrepancy in the date of the crime or a delay in the First Information Report (FIR) undermined the prosecution’s case. The court’s verdict reaffirms the trial court’s findings that the accused exploited his familiarity with the survivor to perpetrate severe sexual assault, noting that the evidence presented against him remained robust enough to sustain the initial judgment.

The accused had approached the trial court’s decision in the Fast Track Special Court in Thrissur, which had sentenced him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment for rape under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), alongside a concurrent three-year term for sexual harassment under Section 354A(1)(i). The High Court’s refusal to interfere with this ruling signals a strict judicial stance on crimes against vulnerable, elderly victims, specifically when perpetrators use positions of trust or pseudo-spiritual influence to commit violence.

Resolving Discrepancies in Survivor Testimony

A primary pillar of the defense’s argument rested on the contention that the survivor’s testimony was unreliable due to inconsistencies regarding the date of the occurrence. During her initial examination, the victim had identified October 7, 2022, as the day of the assault. However, upon being recalled for further examination, she clarified that the incident actually took place on October 8, 2022, explaining that the initial date was a mistake attributed to memory loss. The defense counsel argued that such a modification constituted a "material improvement" that should invalidate the prosecution's entire narrative.

Justice Badharudeen, however, took a pragmatic approach to this inconsistency. The court observed that the victim’s error, while notable, did not constitute a fatal flaw in the prosecution ’s case. The judgment highlighted that the prosecution had substantiated the correct date through corroborative evidence , specifically mobile phone call details. The court noted: "Failure on the part of the Public Prosecutor would not stand in the way of disbelieving the version of PW2, which is supported by three calls in between the accused and PW2 on the date of occurrence, viz. 08.10.2022 ." This reliance on digital forensics ensured that the survivor’s account, despite the confusion over the calendar date, was tethered to objective, timestamped records of communication between the two parties.

The court further addressed the defense’s reliance on the testimony of the survivor’s son, who alleged that the victim had falsely implicated the accused due to a pre-existing dispute regarding a property sale. The High Court rejected this line of reasoning, noting that the son’s own documented animosity toward his mother rendered his testimony biased and insufficient to discredit the victim’s direct account of the sexual assault. The court determined that the dispute did not mitigate the gravity of the physical violence suffered by the victim, nor did it offer a plausible alternative explanation for the forensic and testimonial evidence that placed the accused at the scene.

Evidentiary Validity and Medical Findings

The defense also challenged the medical evidence, pointing to the absence of external injuries found during the survivor’s medical examination, which occurred 20 days after the incident. They argued that the lack of physical signs of struggle suggested the assault never occurred. The High Court dismissed this argument by referencing the expert medical testimony provided by the doctor who examined the survivor. The court confirmed that the doctor had explicitly stated that any minor injuries sustained during such an incident would have naturally healed over the course of nearly three weeks, thereby rendering the absence of fresh trauma expected rather than suspicious.

Furthermore, the court addressed concerns regarding the delay in filing the FIR. While the FIR was registered 19 days after the incident, the survivor provided a consistent explanation that she had needed time to consult with her children—who were living abroad—before taking the formal step of approaching the police. The court found this justification reasonable, noting that in cases of sexual molestation involving elderly individuals, such delays are often a byproduct of the trauma, fear, and social stigma associated with the experience, and should not be used as a mechanism to exonerate the accused.

The court also affirmed the admissibility of the Call Detail Records (CDR) presented by the Nodal Officer, despite initial defense objections regarding technical compliance. Upon closer review, the High Court confirmed that the requirements under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act were met, validating the digital evidence that proved the accused had made multiple phone calls to the victim on the day of the rape. This technical verification acted as the final blow to the defense’s attempt to characterize the encounter as a fabrication or a result of property-related animosity.

Following the dismissal of the appeal, the High Court directed the accused to surrender before the Special Court to begin serving his sentence. The court ordered that the bail bond previously granted to the accused be cancelled, ensuring that the judgment of the trial court is executed without further delay. By upholding both the conviction and the 10-year term, the High Court has underscored the principle that even where procedural irregularities or minor testimonial shifts exist, they do not automatically dismantle a criminal conviction if the core evidence of the assault remains cohesive and supported by independent, objective documentation. The case stands as a firm reminder of the judiciary's commitment to protecting the elderly from exploitation and violence, irrespective of the sophistication of the defense's tactical arguments.