The Kerala HC held that delay in lodging FIR in sexual offences against women and girls must be viewed differently due to social stigma and fear of reputational harm, reinforcing the need for a sensitive approach in prosecuting such cases.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
KERALA: The Kerala High Court recently upheld the conviction of a man under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for outraging the modesty of a woman, even though he was acquitted of the more serious charge under Section 376 IPC (rape).
The Bench of Justice M.B. Snehalatha emphasized that when it comes to sexual offences against women and girls, the delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR) must be viewed with a different perspective.
ALSO READ: Madras High Court Warns Police: Don’t Name Sexual Offence Victims Even in FIRs
Victims and their families often hesitate due to concerns about social stigma, reputation, and the emotional consequences of reporting such offences. Justice M.B. Snehalatha observed,
“When a sexual offence is committed against a girl or woman, the prosecutrix and her family often remain deeply concerned about their honour and social reputation. As a result, before approaching the police station, they may hesitate or take time to decide whether to lodge a complaint, weighing the consequences and stigma associated with such disclosure. Delay in lodging the FIR in sexual offences against girls and women has to be considered with a different yardstick.”
In the recent case, the petitioner was accused of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl who had come to his house to watch television. While the trial court did not find sufficient evidence to convict him of rape, it concluded that his conduct, dragging the girl to his bedroom, undressing her, and attempting to force himself on her, clearly established the offence under Section 354 IPC.
The Sessions Court later upheld this view. The petitioner argued that the testimonies of the victim and her parents had inconsistencies and, since he was acquitted under Section 376 IPC, he could not be convicted under Section 354 IPC based on the same facts.
The prosecution, however, relied on Section 222 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which permits a conviction for a lesser offence if the evidence supports it, even if there was no formal charge for the minor offence.
The High Court agreed with the reasoning of the lower courts, stating that the victim’s consistent account was credible and proved the essential ingredients of Section 354 IPC.
The Court reiterated that a conviction under a minor offence is legally permissible if the major offence is not proved. It concluded that both the trial court and appellate court were justified in their findings, and no interference was warranted.
Accordingly, the revision petition was dismissed.
Case Title: Chandran V. State of Kerala
CRL.REV.PET NO. 832 OF 2018
READ ORDER HERE
Click Here to Read More Reports On Sexual Offences
