R v Rathod

[2025] SADC 91

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Criminal)

R v RATHOD

Criminal Trial by Judge Alone

[2025] SADC 91

Reasons for the Verdict of His Honour Judge White 

18 July 2025

CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES - MAINTAINING SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH CHILD AND PERSISTENT SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILD

Accused pleaded guilty during course of alleged victim's evidence. The Court was invited by prosecution and defence to enter a verdict of guilty.

Verdict: Guilty.

Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 50(1); Juries Act 1927 (SA) s 7, referred to.

R v RATHOD
[2025] SADC 91

Criminal

1. Kaushik Thakershi Rathod was charged with Sexual Abuse of a Child.

2. I set out the charge that was the subject of the trial beginning 15 July 2025:

   Count 1

   Offence Details:
   

   Sexual Abuse of a Child. (Section 50(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).

   Particulars

   Kaushik Thakershi Rathod between the 1^st day of April 2020 and the 13^th day of May 2024 at Seaton, Para Hills West and other places, maintained an unlawful sexual relationship with [LB], a person under the age of 17 years, by engaging in two or more unlawful sexual acts with or towards her namely:

   (a)    Kissing her on the lips on more than one occasion;

   (b)    Touching her breasts on more than one occasion;

   (c)    Touching her genitals on more than one occasion;

   (d)    Inserting a finger into her vagina on more than one occasion;

   (e)    Causing her to touch his penis on more than one occasion;

   (f)     Causing her to perform an act of fellatio upon him on more than one occasion;

   (g)    Performing an act of cunnilingus upon her;

   (h)    Inserting his penis into her vagina on more than one occasion; and

   (i)     Communicating with her with the intention of procuring her to engage in, or submit to, sexual activity on more than one occasion.

3. Prior to trial he had elected pursuant to the Juries Act 1927[1] to have this charge tried without a jury.

   [1]     ‘the Act’.

4. After pleading not guilty to the charge and an order for witnesses was made, Mr Foundas opened the prosecution case to me outlining the anticipated evidence, in particular that of LB.

5. At the end of the day’s evidence on 15 July 2025, LB was still in examination in chief.

6. On resumption of the trial on 16 July 2025, it was indicated, in the absence of LB, that Mr Rathod wished to change his plea to guilty.  He was re-arraigned and entered a guilty plea.  An allocutus was administered.

7. I have considered my duty as the trial judge as to whether, in light of the guilty plea to the charge on 16 July, I should direct myself to enter a guilty verdict accordingly. This is what is expected when such a situation occurs in a jury trial as the jury are in ‘charge’ of an accused until they return a verdict.

8. The procedure for election for trial by judge alone is governed by the Juries Act, in particular section 7 which in part states:

   If a criminal trial proceeds without a jury under this section, the judge may make any decision that could have been made by a jury and such a decision will, for all purposes, have the same effect as a verdict of a jury.[2]

   [2] Section 7(4) of the Act.

9. As this guilty plea was entered after the trial began, it is my belief that, consistent with a trial on a major indictable offence, that a verdict must be returned.

10. Therefore, on 18 July 2025 I reconvened the Court. Mr Foundas closed the case for the prosecution and Mr Bowen, counsel for Mr Rathod, did not present or call any evidence.  Both Mr Foundas and Mr Bowen invited me to enter a verdict of guilty based on the part-heard evidence of LB and the guilty plea on 16 July 2025.

11. Therefore, my brief reasons will follow for my verdict.

    Reasons for Verdict

    1.   In light of the matters expressed above, I find each element of the charge proved beyond reasonable doubt due to the following:

    i.The part heard evidence of the complainant LB.

    ii.The request for the accused to be re-arraigned on 16 July on the charge to which he entered a plea of guilty.[3]

    iii.The prosecution closed its case. Mr Rathod did not present any evidence in the defence case.

    iv.Both counsel invited me to enter a verdict of guilty based on the prosecution case, including the guilty plea of Mr Rathod.

    v.In light of LB’s evidence and the accused’s acknowledgement of guilt to the charge that he was previously contesting, I am convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the charge has been proved.

    [3]     See T69.

    Verdict

12. I find the accused guilty as charged.