The Kerala High Court has dismissed a state government appeal and upheld the acquittal of a man and his wife in a sensitive case involving allegations of sexual assault by the father against their minor daughter. The bench comprising Justices Raja Vijayaraghavan and K V Jaya Kumar found no merit in the prosecution's challenge to the trial court's verdict.
Court's Rationale for Upholding Acquittal
In a significant ruling delivered on November 24, 2025, the High Court bench emphasized that the trial court had conducted a thorough examination of the evidence before reaching its conclusion. The court noted that medical evidence presented in the case was inconsistent with the testimony provided by the minor survivor, creating reasonable doubt about the allegations.
The bench observed that the survivor did not qualify as a sterling witness due to serious inconsistencies in her evidence. This assessment played a crucial role in the court's decision to affirm the acquittal of both accused persons.
Key Evidentiary Discrepancies
The medical examination findings proved pivotal in the case outcome. According to court documents, the doctor who examined the survivor testified that no external injuries were observed on the minor's intimate parts, despite the survivor's claims of sexual assault by her father.
Furthermore, the medical certificate explicitly stated there was no evidence of recent vaginal penetration. These medical findings directly contradicted the allegations of repeated sexual assault, creating substantial doubt about the prosecution's case.
The court also noted that the possibility of false implication could not be ruled out, referencing the trial court's original assessment of the evidence.
Legal Principles Applied
The judgment reinforced a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence: "if a reasonable doubt arises regarding the guilt of the accused, benefit of doubt cannot be withheld from the accused". This principle, deeply embedded in Indian criminal law, proved decisive in the court's reasoning.
The High Court found that the trial court's findings and conclusions were reasonable and plausible, and identified no illegality, perversity, or glaring mistakes in the original judgment. Consequently, the court declared the state's appeal as not maintainable and dismissed it.
Prosecution's Arguments Rejected
Senior Public Prosecutor Neema T V had vigorously contested the trial court's verdict, arguing that the court had "miserably failed" to appreciate the prosecution evidence correctly. She contended that the acquittal went against the "weight of evidence, facts, and circumstances of the case".
The prosecution emphasized the gravity of the crime, noting that since the alleged perpetrator was the father, the offense fell within the "rarest of rare" category. They maintained that the sole testimony of the survivor should have been sufficient to sustain conviction without requiring corroboration.
However, the defense counsel successfully argued that the survivor's evidence was "contradictory and inconsistent" with the medical officer's testimony. They maintained that conviction couldn't be legally sustained solely based on the survivor's evidence given these inconsistencies.
Case Background and Allegations
The case originated from a complaint lodged by the 12-year-old survivor with local police on February 23, 2023. The minor had alleged that her father sexually abused her over a prolonged period, with the first incident occurring when she was in class 1 and continuing through class 5.
Disturbingly, the case records indicated that the mother had knowledge about the alleged sexual abuse but did not report the matter to authorities. The special court had framed charges under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, including Sections 376(2)(f), 376(2)(n), and 376AB of IPC, and Sections 6, 10, and 19 of POCSO Act.
The Kerala High Court's ruling underscores the critical importance of consistent and corroborative evidence in securing convictions, even in cases involving serious allegations against family members.
