Kerala HC Upholds 10-Year Rape Sentence, Rejecting Child Victim’s Later Recantation as Medical and Forensic Evidence Supported Her Initial Account

The prosecution alleged that the appellant broke into the victim’s family home and raped her.

The Sessions Court convicted him under Sections 450 and 376(2) IPC and sentenced him to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 376(2), one year under Section 450, and fines.

The victim, PW5, initially testified in chief that the appellant had raped her, but during cross-examination several months later said that her allegation arose from a misconception and that she had no complaint against him.

The victim’s parents and other prosecution witnesses turned hostile.

The prosecution also relied on medical evidence of genital injuries and recent penetration, and chemical analysis detecting human semen and spermatozoa in samples.

The appellant appealed against the conviction and sentence under Section 374(2) CrPC.

The Court considered Sections 450 and 376(2) IPC, under which the appellant had been convicted, and Section 374(2) CrPC, under which the appeal was brought.

It also considered Section 27 of the Evidence Act in relation to the recovery of clothing following the appellant’s disclosure.

The Court treated the victim’s testimony, medical findings, and forensic evidence as relevant to assessing whether the prosecution had proved the offences.

It cited no precedent setting out a separate evidentiary test.

The Court accepted PW5’s initial testimony in chief, which described the rape and the appellant’s entry into the home.

It rejected her later retraction, reasoning that the delay between chief-examination and cross-examination, together with the surrounding circumstances, indicated that she had been won over or influenced.

The Court considered her initial account corroborated by the medical evidence of genital injuries and recent penetration, and by the chemical analysis detecting semen and spermatozoa in the relevant samples.

It also relied on evidence concerning the recovery of the appellant’s clothing.

On that evidentiary assessment, it concluded that the prosecution had proved both offences despite the hostile witnesses and PW5’s later retraction.

It vacated the order suspending sentence and granting bail, directed the appellant to appear before the Sessions Court to serve the sentence, and directed that court to execute the sentence if he failed to appear.