RAMESH vs STATE OF KERALA

CNR : KLHC010138042014
2026:KER:81607
CRL.A NO.292 OF 2014
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
RD
FRIDAY, THE 23 DAY OF OCTOBER 2026/1ST KARTHIKA, 1948
CRL.A NO. 292 OF 2014
CRIME NO.361/2009 OF PUDUNAGARAM POLICE STATION,
PALAKKAD
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.03.2014 IN SC NO.103
OF 2011 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT-V,
PALAKKAD
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
RAMESH, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.MANI
KOLODU HOUSE, PITTUPEEDIKA,
KODUVAYOOR.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.C.M.NAZAR
SHRI.S.SUDARSANAN
RESPONDENT/S TATE AND COMPLAINANT :
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN 682031.
SRI.SAJEEV P K, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
29.09.2026, THE COURT ON 23.10.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

CNR : KLHC010138042014
2026:KER:81607
CRL.A NO.292 OF 2014
2
CR
JUDGMENT
rd
Dated this the 23 day of October, 2026
The sole accused in S.C.No.103/2011 on the files of
the Additional Sessions Court-V, Palakkad, has preferred this
criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, challenging judgment dated 19.03.2014 in the
above case. The respondent herein is the State of Kerala,
represented by the learned Public Prosecutor.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the
appellant/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor in
detail. Perused the verdict under challenge and the relevant
documents.
3. Here, the prosecution alleges commission
of offences punishable under Sections 450 and 376 of the
Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for short)
by the appellant/accused. The prosecution case is that the

CNR : KLHC010138042014
2026:KER:81607
CRL.A NO.292 OF 2014
3
accused, with sexual intent, trespassed into the family
residence of the victim, at 17.30 hours on 07.11.2009 by
breaking open the front door and waited there for the arrival of
PW5, who was watching TV in the neibourhood, and as PW5
entered the house, caught hold on her, closed her mouth,
made her lay on the floor, removed her undergarments and
forcibly subjected her to sexual intercourse, thereby
committed offences punishable under Sections 450 and 376
of IPC.
4. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge
for the said offences and recorded evidence. During trial,
PW1 to PW14 were examined, Exts.P1 to P17 and MO1 to
MO6 were marked on the side of the prosecution. No
evidence was let in by the defence.
5. Finally, on appreciation of the evidence, the
learned Sessions Judge found that the appellant/accused
had committed offences punishable under Sections 450 and

CNR : KLHC010138042014
2026:KER:81607
CRL.A NO.292 OF 2014
4
376(2) of IPC. Accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced
as under:
“The convict Ramesh is sentenced to
rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years
under 376(2) IPC and one year under section 450
IPC. He shall also pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- each
under section 450 & 376(2) IPC (total Rs.50,000)
In default of payment fine the convict
shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further
period of six months each under section 376 and
450 IPC. Set off of the period served as an under
trial prisoner is allowed. The substantial sentences
of imprisonment shall be concurrent while the
default sentence shall be consecutive.”
6. In the instant case, it is argued by the
learned counsel for the appellant/accused that in cases of
sexual molestation, the evidence of the victim is vital. In the
instant case, even though she was not initially cross-
examined and had given evidence supporting the occurrence
in tune with the prosecution allegations, at a later point of
time, when she was recalled and cross-examined, she had
given evidence that she had made complaints regarding

CNR : KLHC010138042014
2026:KER:81607
CRL.A NO.292 OF 2014
5
commission of rape on misconception of fact and that she did
not have any complaint against the appellant/accused. It is
pointed out further that, apart from the evidence of PW5,
PW4, who is the father of PW5, also did not give any
evidence supporting the prosecution. Further PW14, PW7
and PW8 turned hostile to the prosecution. According to the
learned counsel for the appellant/accused, since PW5 gave
inconsistent versions during her chief examination and cross-
examination, her evidence could not be believed, and in such
view of the matter, the verdict impugned would require
interference.
7. Zealously opposing this contention, the
learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, in this case, when
PW5, the victim, was examined by the prosecution, initially
no cross-examination was effected and that at a later point of
time, after pressuring her to depose against her evidence
given during the chief examination, she was recalled and at

CNR : KLHC010138042014
2026:KER:81607
CRL.A NO.292 OF 2014
6
this juncture, she had stated, as submitted by the learned
counsel for the appellant/accused. According to him, apart
from the evidence of PW5, corroborative evidence is also
available in this case in the form of Exts.P11 and P12
tendered in evidence through PW12, Dr.Jayasree, which
would show the presence of human semen and spermatozoa
in the vaginal smear and swab, collected from the victim at
the time of her examination. Therefore, the version of PW5
recorded after deferring her cross-examination for a long
period, stating that she had alleged commission of rape on
misconception of fact, could not be believed, otherwise, the
evidence available would substantiate the offences found to
be committed by the learned Sessions Judge. Therefore, he
pressed for confirmation of the conviction and sentence.
8. Adverting to the rival submissions, the
points arise for consideration are:
1) Whether the Sessions Court went wrong in

CNR : KLHC010138042014
2026:KER:81607
CRL.A NO.292 OF 2014
7
finding that the accused committed the
offence punishable under Section 450 of the
IPC?
2) Whether the Sessions Court erred in finding
that the accused committed the offence
punishable under Section 376(2) of the IPC?
3) Whether the judgment impugned would
require any interference?
4) Order to be passed.
9. Point Nos. 1 to 4
In this case, PW5 is the victim. She was examined
initially on 05.11.2013, after conducting voir dire examination
to find her competency as a witness capable of
understanding the questions put to her, so as to give rational
answers before the court. On satisfaction of the same, the
learned Sessions Judge recorded her evidence. She testified
that she knew the entire facts of the case, though she did not
remember the exact date of occurrence. According to her,
the occurrence took place in 2009 in between 5.00 – 5.30

CNR : KLHC010138042014
2026:KER:81607
CRL.A NO.292 OF 2014
8
pm. At the time of occurrence, she, along with her father,
was at the house since her mother had gone to work. Then
her father left home to shop, since there was no ‘curry’
(gravy) to take food. Soon, the accused reached there, with
an umbrella since there was raining. Despite that the
accused removed her dress and she cried aloud. Despite
that the accused removed her shaddy and also removed his
dress, and committed rape on her and she cried. Her auntie’s
house was nearby and she disclosed the reason to her
auntie that she cried as she was beaten by her father. When
it was specifically asked, what the accused had done, PW5
stated that he had caught hold on her and raped her. She
also testified that she had given statement to the police in this
regard. It was recorded by the learned Sessions Judge that
on that date, ‘ cross-examination was nil ’. Later, she was
cross-examined after filing a petition as on 11.03.2014. She

CNR : KLHC010138042014
2026:KER:81607
CRL.A NO.292 OF 2014
9
deposed during cross-examination that she was studying in
th
the 7 standard. When a specific question in the nature of
leading question was asked by the learned counsel for the
accused, as to whether the accused had caused any bodily
assault on her, she stated that it was on 08.11.2009 at noon.
Thus during cross-examination also, PW5 reiterated the
occurrence. When another question in the nature of leading
question was put by the learned counsel for the accused to
the effect that there was no occurrence of rape at the
instance of the accused, the same was answered in the
negative. She further testified that she stated so because of
misconception and she had no complaint against the
accused. According to her, she had given the above
statement not on threat or any influence.
10. PW1 examined in this case is the Village
Officer, Koduvayur No.I Village, and it was through him
Ext.P1, the scene plan, was tendered in evidence. Ext.P2 is

CNR : KLHC010138042014
2026:KER:81607
CRL.A NO.292 OF 2014
10
the possession certificate issued by PW2, who was working
as the Secretary of Koduvayur Grama Panchayat, and
according to him, as per the assessment register and Ext.P2,
the house belonged to Subramannian Konchi (PW4), the
father of the victim.
11. PW3 examined in this case is
Dr.Swarnnavally. According to her, while working as a Civil
Surgeon at the District Hospital, Palakkad, at about 9.15 pm
on 08.11.2009, she had examined PW5, who was brought by
her parents, with history of attempted rape by a neighbour,
named Ramesh, at the residence of the victim when she was
alone at the house. She deposed further that on examination,
it was found that “ there was vulval injury, congest and
oedema and injuries and the vulva hymen torn with
blood staining. ” She deposed further that vaginal
examination was not allowed due to severe pain. Vaginal
smear and vaginal swab were taken for sending the same for

CNR : KLHC010138042014
2026:KER:81607
CRL.A NO.292 OF 2014
11
chemical analysis report. According to her, recent vaginal
penetration was found during the examination, and there was
evidence for resistance, and accordingly, she issued Ext.P3,
which would bear her signature. Apart from that, the same
Doctor issued Ext.P4, potency certificate of the accused,
certifying that “there is nothing to suggest that the person is
incapable of performing sexual acts” .
12. In this case, PW4 and PW6, who are the
parents of the victim, turned hostile to the prosecution. PW8
supported Ext.P6 seizure mahazar regarding the recovery of
MO2 to MO4. Ext.P7 is the scene mahazar. PW9 admitted
the signature in Ext.P8 recovery mahazar prepared by the
police. The birth certificate of the victim was tendered in
evidence through PW10 as Ext.P9.
13. Another crucial witness in this case is
PW12, Dr.Jayasree, who is the Scientific Expert. According
to her, while she was working as the Joint Chemical

CNR : KLHC010138042014
2026:KER:81607
CRL.A NO.292 OF 2014
12
Examiner at the Chemical Examination Laboratory,
Ernakulam, she had received one sealed packet from
Dr.Swarnnavally, Civil Surgeon, District Hospital, Palakkad,
through the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police and deposed
as under:
“Vaginal swab and swab etc. containing the
following
One Surya aged 8 years involved in Crime No.361/09
of Puthunagaram Police Station on examination from
the presence of semen and spermatozoa.
1. Vaginal swab two nos. On cotton
in stick in two vials marked 1(a) & 1(b) in the
laboratory.
2. Vaginal smear two number in two
microscopic slides marked 2(a) & 2(b) in the
laboratory.
The seal on the packet were intact and
found tallied with the sample seal provided.
The articles have been duly received under
receipt No.6742/09. The article have been examined
under my personal supervision and chemical analysis
report No.5851/2010 dated 23/11/2010 bearing my

CNR : KLHC010138042014
2026:KER:81607
CRL.A NO.292 OF 2014
13
signature was issued. Human semen & spermatozoa
were detected in item No.1 & 2. I issued the certificate
P11 (marked)
On 12/01/10 I received ‘6’ sealed packets
from Hon’ble JFCM, Chittur through PC 4048 under
receipt 221/10, and marked serial numbers 1 to 6 and
each packet labelled “item 599/09 CR.361/09 of
PDGM PS” etc. Containing the material objects
examination.
1. Shaddy alleged to contain pubic hair human
semen & spermatozoa 1 No.
2. Skirt, blue alleged to contain pubic hair,
human semen & spermatozoa
3. Jacket alleged to contain pubic hair human
semen & spermatozoa 1 No.
4. Lunky alleged to be stained with human
semen & spermatozoa 1 No.
5. Shaddy alleged to be stained with human
semen & spermatozoa.
6. Pubic hair one vial.
The seal on the packet were intact and
found tallying with the sample seal provided.
Human semen & spermatozoa were
detected in item No.1. Semen & Spermatozoa were
not detected in items 2 to 6. Pubic hair was not
detected in item nos.1, 2 & 3. Human semen &

CNR : KLHC010138042014
2026:KER:81607
CRL.A NO.292 OF 2014
14
spermatozoa were detected in items 1 & 2 under
receipt No.6742/09 dated 20/11/09. I issued the
certificate Ext.P12 (marked) which bears my
signature.
Cross examination – Nil.”
Thus the evidence given by this expert witness was not at all
challenged during cross-examination.
14. PW13 examined in this case had recorded
Ext.P5 First Information Statement. Sri.Hamza, PW14, was
the Investigating Officer, and he supported the prosecution
with regard to his investigation. According to him, he took
charge of the investigation on 09.11.2009. He deposed that
he had recovered MO2 Shaddi, MO3 Pavada, and MO4 Jacket
as produced by PW4, as per Ext.P6 mahazar, arrested the
accused, as per Ext.P13 arrest memo, issued Ext.P14 arrest
intimation and conducted a body search, as per Ext.P15
inspection memo. He further testified that on examination of the
accused, he confession that
എന്നെ കൂട്ടിക്ക ൊണ്ടു പോയാൽ ഞാൻ

CNR : KLHC010138042014
2026:KER:81607
CRL.A NO.292 OF 2014
15
.
കൃത്യസമയം ധരിച്ചിരുന്നതായ ലുങ്കിയും ഷർട്ടും എടുത്തു ഹാജരാക്കിത്തരാം
and accordingly, as led by him, they visited the house
No.X/140, Koduvayur Panchayath, and recovered MO5 Lunki
and MO6 Sheddi as per Ext.P8 mahazar. Ext.P8 is shown to
PW9 Sunil, he admitted his signature appearing thereon.
However, no material evidence was brought out through him.
He further testified that the accused was got examined by a
doctor at the District Hospital, Palakkad and obtained Ext.P4
certificate regarding the potency test, and took custody of
the pubic hair produced by the policeman as per Ext.P10
mahazar. Ext.P10 is substantiated by PW11 Gopalan, who
stated that while working as the writer in the Circle Inspector
Office, Kuzhalmannam, he witnessed a policeman,
Manikandan producing a vial containing pubic hair and the
Circle Inspector took custody of the same as per Ext.P10
mahazar as MO1. The investigating officer or the person
allegedly produced the article did not depose as to the

CNR : KLHC010138042014
2026:KER:81607
CRL.A NO.292 OF 2014
16
source of MO1. PW14 Hamza further testified that he
submitted Ext.P16 forwarding note in respect of the articles
recovered, produced the articles as per Ext.P17 property list,
obtained Ext.P9 birth certificate from the Palakkad
Municipality, and Ext.P1 scene plan from the Koduvayur
Village Office. Ext.P9 was further proved by PW10, V.C.
Thomas, the Registrar of births and deaths, Palakkad
Municipality, he deposed that he had issued Ext.P9
certificate.
15. In this case, as pointed out by the learned
Public Prosecutor and as seen from the deposition of PW5,
PW5 was initially examined in chief on 05.11.2013. During
chief examination, she deposed about the occurrence, with
ingredients to find commission of offences under Sections
450 and 376 of IPC. On that day, the learned Additional
Sessions Judge recorded that “cross-examination nil”, as the
counsel for the accused not ready to cross-examine.

CNR : KLHC010138042014
2026:KER:81607
CRL.A NO.292 OF 2014
17
Thereafter, she was recalled for the purpose of cross-
examination on 11.03.2014. During cross-examination,
though she reiterated that the occurrence, according to her,
she deposed about rape on misconception of fact and she
stated that she had no complaint against the accused. Thus,
it appears that PW5 was won over by the time gap in
between 05.11.2013 and 11.03.2014 and later, she was
cross-examined by putting questions to get other evidence
negated during chief examination, where the parents of the
victim also turned hostile. Here, the question is whether the
evidence given by PW5 during cross-examination after a long
period without cross-examining her on 05.11.2013, could be
accepted. The learned Sessions Judge was not inclined to
accept the evidence given by PW5 during cross-examination,
and according to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the
medical evidence well corroborated the version of PW5
regarding the penetrative sexual assault spoken by her

CNR : KLHC010138042014
2026:KER:81607
CRL.A NO.292 OF 2014
18
during chief examination. In this case, soon after the
occurrence, PW5 was medically examined by PW12 and she
found evidence supporting the sexual intercourse, and stated
that ‘ there was vulval injury, congest and oedema and
injuries and the vulva hymen torn with blood staining’ . Apart
from that, in the instant case, the dress worn by the accused
at the time of commission of crime, i.e., lunky and shaddy,
marked as MO5 and MO6, were recovered under Section 27
of the Evidence Act by preparing Ext.P8 mahazar, as
deposed by PW13 and supported by PW9 who admitted his
signature in Ext.P8. The Scientific Expert opined that human
semen and spermatozoa detected in item No.(1) and semen
and spermatozoa were not detected in item Nos.(2) to (6).
Pubic hair was detected in item Nos.(1), (2) and (3). Further,
human semen and spermatozoa were detected in item Nos.
(1) and (2) under receipt No.6742/09 dated 20.11.2009. This
would also fortify that the evidence given by PW5 during

CNR : KLHC010138042014
2026:KER:81607
CRL.A NO.292 OF 2014
19
chief examination, as to commission of rape resulted in
ejaculation, after trespassing upon the residence of PW4, is
believable, though she had given evidence in contra when
she was cross-examined after a long period. The inference is
that, PW5 was forced to give such a statement at a later
point of time by threat and influence. Therefore, the evidence
given by PW1 during cross-examination, as espoused, is
liable to be rejected. Thus the evidence in toto when
evaluated, it could be gathered that the prosecution
succeeded in proving that the accused had committed
offences punishable under Sections 450 as well as 376(2) of
IPC. Therefore, the conviction is liable to be confirmed.
16. Coming to the sentence, ten years is the
statutory minimum sentence provided for the offence
punishable under Section 376(2) of IPC. Thus, no reduction
in the sentence is practically possible. Therefore, the
sentence is also liable to be confirmed.

CNR : KLHC010138042014
2026:KER:81607
CRL.A NO.292 OF 2014
20
17. In the result, this appeal fails and is
dismissed accordingly.
18. The order suspending sentence and
granting bail to the accused stands vacated, with direction
to the accused to appear before the Additional Sessions
Court-V, Palakkad, forthwith to undergo the sentence, failing
which, the learned Additional Sessions Judge is directed to
execute the sentence, without fail.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this
judgment to the Additional Sessions Court-V, Palakkad,
forthwith for information and compliance.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
nkr