The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has upheld the conviction and sentence imposed on Suji @ Kasi in a case involving repeated sexual assault, criminal intimidation and privacy-related offences. The Division Bench held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and found no legal or factual error in the trial court's judgment.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a complaint lodged by a woman before the CBCID in September 2020 during the investigation of another criminal case already pending against Suji @ Kasi. According to the prosecution, the accused first contacted the woman through social media and gradually gained her trust by promising to marry her and help her secure a job. Believing these assurances, she agreed to stay in touch with him and later shifted their conversations to private messaging platforms.
The prosecution alleged that after establishing the relationship, the accused persuaded the woman to meet him on multiple occasions. During these meetings, he allegedly subjected her to sexual acts without her free and voluntary consent. It was further alleged that he secretly recorded intimate photographs and videos and later used those recordings to threaten her with publication on social media if she refused to meet him or comply with his demands. The prosecution claimed that these threats resulted in repeated sexual exploitation over a period of time.
The complaint was registered as a separate criminal case after obtaining the required permission from the CBCID headquarters. During the investigation, the police collected witness statements, seized electronic devices, obtained forensic examination reports, and filed a charge sheet before the Fast Track Mahila Court at Nagercoil.
After trial, the Fast Track Mahila Court convicted the accused for offences including repeated rape under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, voyeurism, criminal intimidation and other related offences. He was sentenced to life imprisonment till the remainder of his natural life along with other punishments. Challenging this conviction and sentence, the accused filed a criminal appeal before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, contending, among other things, that the relationship was consensual, there was an unexplained delay in filing the complaint, and the electronic evidence relied upon by the prosecution was unreliable.
Court's Observations
After examining the evidence, the Bench observed that the case was not one of a voluntary relationship turning sour but one where deception, intimidation and threats allegedly deprived the victim of free and informed consent.
The Court analysed the sequence of events in detail and concluded that the prosecution had established a continuous pattern of emotional manipulation, false promises, intimidation and repeated sexual exploitation. It also noted that the victim's testimony remained consistent on material aspects and inspired confidence.
Rejecting the defence's argument that the relationship was consensual, the Bench held that the statutory presumption under Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act became applicable once the victim stated before the Court that she had not consented to the sexual acts.
The Bench observed:
“The evidence clearly establishes that the act happened against her will and without her valid consent.”
The Court also reiterated that conviction in sexual offence cases can rest on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it is found to be credible and trustworthy, and that unnecessary insistence on independent corroboration is not required where the evidence inspires confidence.
Defence Arguments Rejected
The appellant argued that there were contradictions in the victim's statements, unexplained delay in lodging the complaint, defects in electronic evidence, and that the relationship was consensual.
The High Court rejected these submissions after independently examining the oral, documentary and electronic evidence. It held that the prosecution had satisfactorily explained the delay in filing the complaint and found no merit in the challenge to the admissibility and reliability of the electronic evidence. The Bench also observed that the trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence while recording the conviction.
Court's Decision
Dismissing the criminal appeal, the Division Bench held that the prosecution had established the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the trial court's findings did not warrant appellate interference.
The Court stated:
“The prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity warranting interference.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Fast Track Mahila Court, Nagercoil.
Case Details
Case Title: Suji @ Kasi v. State
Case Number: Crl.A(MD). No. 644 of 2023
Judges: Justice N. Anand Venkatesh and Justice K. Ramakrishnan
Decision Date: 14 July 2026
-300x169.webp)