The Kerala High Court ruled that trial courts must base decisions on discharge pleas in criminal cases exclusively on prosecution documents and not on materials from the accused. The judgment, in the Stephin Raj v. State of Kerala case, upheld the trial court’s dismissal of a rape discharge plea, confirming sufficient evidence for charges.
Kerala: The Kerala High Court recently ruled that trial courts must rely solely on prosecution records when deciding pleas for discharge in criminal cases and cannot consider materials produced by the accused. The ruling was delivered by Justice A Badharudeen in the case Stephin Raj v. State of Kerala, addressing a petition filed by a man accused of rape.
The Court emphasized that trial courts are restricted to examining only the records and documents submitted by the prosecution when considering discharge pleas. It clarified:
“It is held that, while considering the plea of discharge, the Special Court (trial court in this case) has to consider the records of the case and the documents submitted therewith by the prosecution. The scope and ambit of discharge shall not be available beyond the prosecution records.”
The judgment firmly stated that courts cannot rely on any documents submitted by the accused or materials outside the prosecution’s records while determining such pleas.
The petitioner was accused of repeatedly raping a woman under the false promise of marriage and was charged under Sections 376(2)(n) and 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deal with rape.
He sought discharge from the case, arguing that:
- The sexual relationship with the woman, who was a distant relative, was consensual.
- The trial court failed to consider a complaint lodged by the woman with the Yuvajana Commission, where she allegedly admitted the relationship was consensual.
The trial court dismissed the discharge plea, finding that:
- The woman’s statements indicated that the sexual relationship occurred under the promise of marriage, which prima facie vitiated her consent under Section 90 of the IPC (consent under misconception).
The Kerala High Court upheld the trial court’s decision, ruling that:
- There was sufficient material to justify framing charges against the accused.
- The trial court was correct in not considering extraneous materials like the woman’s complaint to the Yuvajana Commission since it was outside the prosecution’s records.
The High Court observed,
“Any consent, if given by the woman, is vitiated under Section 90 of the IPC as it would be considered consent given under misconception.”
Case Title – Stephin Raj v. State of Kerala
Read the Judgement here:
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
