Kerala High Court upholds 10-year jail term for man who raped 73-year-old woman on pretext of removing evil spirits

The Kerala High Court recently upheld the conviction and 10-year prison sentence of a man who raped a 73-year-old woman in Thrissur on the pretext that he was removing evil spirits from her body [Muhammed v State of Kerala].

Justice A Badharudeen dismissed an appeal filed by on Muhammad challenging his trial court conviction for the offences of rape and sexual harassment under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

In its October 12 ruling, the High Court held that the rape survivor's testimony was sufficient to establish the guilt of the convict, despite discrepancies concerning the date of the incident and a delay of 19 days in reporting the crime.

"The learned Special Judge is right in holding that the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 354 A(1)(i) and 376(1) of IPC," the Court held.

It also cancelled the bail earlier given to the convict and directed him to surrender immediately before the trial court to serve out his jail sentence.

The case arose from an incident that took place on October 8, 2022, when Muhammed (accused) visited the rape survivor's house after she contacted him on her son's advice.

According to the prosecution, the accused, who was already acquainted with the survivor, had visited her house on three earlier occasions. He claimed that evil spirits were present in her body and offered to remove them.

Under the guise of curing her ailments, he touched her breasts as well as her private parts and even inserted his finger into her vagina.

A trial court convicted him of rape and sexual harassment. It sentenced him to 10 year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1 lakh for rape. The court also sentenced him to 3 years of imprisonment with a fine of ₹25,000 for the offence of sexual harassment. Both jail sentences were to run concurrently.

The accused challenged the trial court's September 2024 ruling before the High Court.

He argued that the survivor had initially stated that the crime had occurred on October 7, 2022, but later changed the date to October 8. The accused further relied on the testimony of the survivor's son to suggest that the survivor had falsely implicated him because of a property dispute and that there was a delay in filing the complaint.

The Court noted that the son himself had differences with his mother and, therefore, his testimony could not be used to disbelieve her account of the sexual assault.

It also found that the survivor had corrected the date in an additional statement given to the police and held that such a discrepancy did not undermine her testimony, which was supported by telephone records showing three calls between her and the accused on October 8.

The Court also held that the absence of injuries was not sufficient to discredit the survivor's testimony. It relied on a doctor's explanation that the medical examination of the survivor was conducted 20 days after the incident and that any injuries caused by the assault could have healed by then.

Further, it rejected the argument that there was a delay in registering the First Information Report (FIR), noting that the survivor had waited to consult her children before approaching the police.

Finding no reason to interfere with the trial court's decision to convict the accused man, the High Court proceeded to dismiss his appeal.

Advocates Balamurali KP, Manu Tom, Renil Iqubal K, Haripriya M, Amal C Peter, Mohammed Ashiq RS and MB Soori appeared for the appellant.

Public Prosecutor MA Shihab represented the State.

[Read Judgment]