The Kerala High Court recently held that trial courts need not consider any material produced by the accused while considering pleas to discharge them from criminal cases. [Stephin Raj v. State of Kerala].Justice A Badharudeen held that courts are required to consider only case records and documents that are submitted by the prosecution. "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 and the court cannot look into any document other than the prosecution records, either presented by the accused or by any other means which do not form part of the prosecution records, while considering plea of discharge," the High Court said in its order. .The order was passed on petition moved by a man accused of repeatedly raping a woman under false promise of marriage. He was booked under Sections 376(2)(n) and 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which deal with rape. He moved the High Court challenging the decision of the trial court to dismiss his plea to be discharged in the case. It was argued that the sexual intercourse between him and the woman concerned, a distant relative of his, was purely consensual. He also took objection to the fact that the trial court had refused to take into account a complaint lodged by the woman before the Yuvajana Commission in which she had allegedly admitted that the relationship was consensual. .The High Court noted the trial court while considering the plea for discharge, had concluded that the statement given by the woman prima facie indicate that the sexual intercourse was on the basis of the promise of marriage. As such, any consent, if any given by the woman, is vitiated under Section 90 of the IPC as it would be considered consent given under misconception.Concurring with the trial court, the High Court said that there is enough material to warrant charges being framed against the accused..It also rejected the contention that the trial court ought to have considered the statement to the Yuvajana Commission that the accused produced..The Court, therefore, refused to interfere with the Session Court's decision and dismissed the petition. .The petitioner was represented by advocates Dheeraj Krishnan Perot, Vineetha AA, Fidha Navas and Lakshmy E. Public Prosecutor TS Jibu appeared for the State. .[Read Order]
