High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2011-03-10Petition dismissed; trial court to dispose of t...

P. P. Shaji v. The Superintendent of Police, Idukki & Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).NO. 23364 OF 2010(Q)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Thomas P. Joseph
Judgment Date: 2011-03-10
Court Decision / Holding: Petition dismissed; reinvestigation denied. Trial court shall dispose of the case on the facts and evidence produced before it untrammelled by any observation contained in this judgment.
Final Disposition: Petition dismissed; trial court to dispose of the case on the facts and evidence before it without regard to observations in this judgment.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

P. P. Shaji

Respondents

The Superintendent of Police, Idukki
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kattapana, Idukki District
The Circle Inspector of Police, Office of the C.I. of Police, Peerumade Police Station
The Sub Inspector of Police, Peerumedu Police Station

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. M. V. Thamban
• Sri. R. Reji
• Smt. Thara Thamban
• Sri. B. Bipin
• Smt. Revathy P. Nair

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor Smt. M. K. Pushpalatha

Case Synopsis & Summary

Petitioner P.P. Shaji challenges a direction to reinvestigate Crime No.95 of 2010 registered at Peerumedu Police Station for alleged rape of his daughter, aged about 11 years, who studied at CSI Vocational Higher Secondary School for Deaf. The private complaint was preferred by the victim’s mother after matrimonial discord, culminating in a Family Court order (Ext. P3) granting a divorce on grounds of adulterous conduct and a separate custody arrangement (OP No.160 of 2006). The writ petition seeks reinvestigation by a superior police officer on grounds of alleged irregularities, contradictions in custody dates, and the absence of clear confirmatory medical evidence. The court examines statements recorded from the victim with the help of an interpreter and notes that the alleged incidents occurred between 27 February and 1 March 2010, with the child subsequently back in school. It considers Ext. P5 medical certificate, which records vaginal examination findings (one finger, elastic hymen) and notes the chemical examination report was awaited. Citing Rahim Beg, Mohammed Kunju, Ulahannan, Ranjit Hazarika and Wahid Khan, the court explains that medical evidence alone may not negate rape and that other evidence can sustain the charge even if certain physical findings are inconclusive. The court refuses to order reinvestigation, stating deficiencies may be challenged during trial, and dismisses the petition. The trial court is directed to decide the case on the evidence before it without regard to observations in this judgment.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Medical evidence can hardly ever negate a charge of rape, though it may not support the charge.
Non-rupture of hymen or absence of injury on victim’s private parts is not sufficient to belie the testimony of the victim.
Partial penetration is possible and would constitute an offence under Section 375 IPC.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that reinvestigation by a superior police officer is required due to irregularities in the ongoing inquiry, contradictions in custody records, and the absence of definitive medical corroboration. The case, arising from a private complaint following matrimonial disputes and a divorce order (Ext. P3), involves custody arrangements and the alleged sexual assault during a short period in late February 2010. The petition emphasizes that chemical examination results were pending and argues that the investigation should be transferred to a higher authority to ensure objectivity. The petitioner also relies on prior jurisprudence to argue that medical evidence alone cannot determinatively prove rape and that inconsistencies in custody dates undermine the reliability of the prosecution case.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that there is no necessity for reinvestigation at this stage; any irregularities can be addressed during trial. They point out that the investigation, including statements from the victim with interpreter assistance, was conducted and that chemical examination results were awaited. They rely on established jurisprudence that medical evidence may not definitively establish rape and that other corroborative evidence can sustain a conviction. They argue that a reinvestigation by a higher authority would be an undue interference and that the petition should be dismissed.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Rahim Beg v. State of U.P.	AIR 1973 SC 343	Mentioned Only	Cited to illustrate that semen stains may have explanations other than rape; the court does not rely on it as controlling authority in this case.
Mohmmed Kunju v. State of Kerala	2007 [3] KLT 218	Mentioned Only	Cited to note that reliance on maternal testimony has limits; not adopted as decisive in the present hearing.
Ulahannan v. State of Kerala	1988 [2] KLT 972	Positive	Court relies on principle that medical evidence cannot readily negate a charge of rape; supports the decision not to halt the case for reinvestigation.
Ranjit Hazarika v. State of Assam	[1998] 8 SCC 635	Positive	Acknowledges that other evidence can sustain a conviction even absent medical proof; used to justify broader evidentiary considerations.
Wahid Khan v. State of M.P.	[2010] 2 SCC 9	Positive	Demonstrates that intact hymen does not preclude rape in light of other evidence; cited to reinforce that medical findings are not sole determinant.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against P. P. Shaji v. The Superintendent of Police, Idukki & Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH** **THURSDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2011 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1932** **WP(C).NO. 23364 OF 2010(Q)** **----------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **-----------------------** **P.P.SHAJI, S/O. PAPPAN, RESIDING AT PLATHOTTATHIL HOUSE, LAKSHMICOVIL P.O., RANICOVIL, PERUMEEDU VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.B.BIPIN SMT.REVATHY P.NAIR** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **-------------------------** ## **1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,** **IDUKKI.** **2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KATTAPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT.** **3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE C.I. OF POLICE, PEERUMADE POLICE STATION.** **4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEERUMEDU POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT.** **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K. PUSHPALATHA** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.** **==================================== W.P(C) No.23364 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 10[th] day of March, 2011** ## **J U D G M E N T** I had after hearing counsel for petitioner dictated the judgment in open Court on March 07, 2011. Learned counsel then requested that the case may be posted to be spoken to. Accordingly I heard learned counsel again this day and is disposing of the case. 2. Petitioner is accused in Crime No.95 of 2010 of Peerumedu Police Station for offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code for alleged rape of his daughter aged about 11 years during the relevant time and studying in the CSI Vocational Higher Secondary School for Deaf, Thiruvalla since the girl is deaf and dump. The case arose on a private complaint preferred by the mother of the (alleged) victim. It would appear that there was discord between petitioner and his wife, mother of the (alleged) victim which resulted in petitioner filing petition before Family Court, Thodupuzha for divorce on the ground of adultery of his wife and that case leading to Ext.P3, judgment dated 30.05.2010 allowing the prayer for divorce. There was also **W.P(C) No.23364 of 2010** -: 2 :- a petition filed by the mother of the girl in the Family Court as O.P. No.160 of 2006 for custody of the girl. That was settled and accordingly the mother was permitted to have the company of the girl for a few days during Onam, Christmas and Mid-summer Vacations. It is the case of de facto complainant that the girl was in the custody of petitioner from 25.02.2010 till 01.03.2010, petitioner brought the girl back to the Institution on 01.03.2010 but the girl was found to be out of mood during those days. The mother learned that the girl was subjected to rape by the petitioner on several occasions between 25.02.2010 and 01.03.2010. On the complaint of the mother proceeding was initiated and Peerumedu Police registered Crime No.95 of 2010. Investigation followed and the petitioner and the girl were subjected to medical examination. This petition is to direct reinvestigation of the case and to entrust such investigation to an Officer superior in rank to respondents 3 and 4. According to the petitioner, third respondent is not properly investigating the case. Petitioner submitted that the case is foisted against him by the mother against whom he obtained an order of divorce as per Ext.P3, judgment. Leaned counsel for petitioner made a fervent plea to order reinvestigation by a superior Officer. My attention is **W.P(C) No.23364 of 2010** ## -: 3 :- drawn to the relevant records produced along with the petition, in particular the wound certificate (Ext.P5). Learned counsel contended that Ext.P5 would not show that there was sexual assault on the girl. It is also contended from Ext.P7 that as against the direction of Family Court in O.P. No.160 of 2006 the de facto complainant took the girl on 12.03.2010. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that report of chemical examination on the vaginal swab and other materials collected from the victim is awaited and investigation is not completed. Learned Public Prosecutor has also referred to the statement filed by the Circle Inspector who is investigating the case. 3. I have gone through the petition, connected records and the statement filed by the Circle Inspector. It is revealed that in the course of investigation statement of the victim was recorded with the assistance of an Interpretor. In that statement the victim is seen to have stated that on three occasions between 27.02.2010 and 01.03.2010 she was subjected to sexual intercourse by the petitioner. She stated in detail the incident. She stated that she was threatened by the petitioner against disclosing the incident. She claimed to have disclosed the **W.P(C) No.23364 of 2010** ## -: 4 :- incident to her paternal uncle's wife. 4. It is contended by learned counsel that going by the complaint and Ext.P6 there are material contradictions in the case of de facto complainant in that in the complaint it is stated that the child was in the custody of petitioner from 25.02.2010 to 05.03.2010 while Ext.P6 issued from the Institution where the child was studying would show that custody with the petitioner was only from 27.02.2010 to 01.03.2010. It is true that in the complaint there is reference to the custody of the child with the petitioner from 25.02.2010 to 05.03.2010. But I find from the complaint that it is also stated that petitioner brought the girl to the School on 01.03.2010. These contradictions are not material on which a direction for re-investigation could be ordered. Moreover I must bear in mind from the statement of the girl as interpreted by the Interpreter that the alleged incident was on 27.02.2010 and thereafter before the girl was brought back to the School. 5. Yet another argument advanced by the learned counsel is that as per the report on chemical examination there was presence of semen only on the cloth of petitioner and that by itself is not sufficient to warrant a conclusion of rape. Learned **W.P(C) No.23364 of 2010** ## -: 5 :- counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in **Rahim Beg v. State of U.P.** (AIR 1973 SC 343) where it was held that presence of semen stains on the langot of a young man could be for various reasons and would not necessarily connect him with the offence of rape. Learned counsel has also invited my attention to the decision of this Court in **Mohmmed Kunju v. State of Kerala** (2007 [3] KLT 218) where this Court was considering an appeal against conviction for offence under Section 376 of the IPC and evidence of the mother regarding her witnessing the alleged rape of her child was not accepted. 6. I have been taken through the medical certificate (Ext.P5) of the girl (aged about 11 years). There, it is stated that the vagina admitted one finger and that hymen is elastic. True it is stated that there is no evidence of physical violence and that final opinion is reserved pending result of chemical examination. According to the learned counsel for petitioner examination of vaginal swab and other materials collected from the child was not positive as regards presence of semen or spermatazova. But I cannot forget that the girl was examined several days after the incident. ## **W.P(C) No.23364 of 2010** -: 6 :- 7. This Court in **Ulahannan v. State of Kerala** (1988 [2] KLT 972) in paragraph 3 held that medical evidence can hardly ever negative a charge of rape though it may not support the charge. There, the medical evidence was that the victim had an elastic hymen which can survive sexual intercourse and rupture of hymen is not necessary in case of such elastic hymen. In **Ranjit Hazarika v. State of Assam** ([1998] 8 SCC 635) even in the absence of medical evidence suggesting rape, other evidence was accepted. It was held that non-rupture of hymen or absence of injury on victim’s private parts was not sufficient to belie the testimony of the victim. In **Wahid Khan v. State of M.P.** ([2010] 2 SCC 9) in spite of the fact that hymen was found to be in tact on medical examination it was found that partial penetration is possible and that would constitute offence under Sec.375 of the IPC. 8. It is argued that investigation of the case may be entrusted with the Superintendent of Police and there may be an order for reinvestigation. Merely because the present situation is not advantageous to the petitioner and he has raised some suspicion regarding the manner of investigation, such an extreme step is not possible. The irregularity, impropriety or deficiency if ## **W.P(C) No.23364 of 2010** **==> picture [41 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** any in the investigation is a matter which petitioner can bring out to his advantage when the investigation Officer is in the box in the course of trial. I do not find reason to direct further or reinvestigation of the case by any other agency. Petition fails. It is dismissed. Trial court shall dispose of the case on the facts and evidence produced before it untrammelled by any observation contained in this judgment. ## **THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.** vsv