Mitali Palnitkar
Published On: January 23, 2022 at 12:00 IST
Senior Advocate Rebecca M John criticized the Trial Court Judgment that Acquitted Bishop Franco Mulakkal in the Nun Rape Case. She spoke about it at a virtual meeting organized by ‘Forum of Religious for Justice and Peace’.
She opined that the Judgment was a ‘travesty’ and had put the Victim on Trial instead of the Accused. She stated that the Judgment overturned the Criminal Law Jurisprudence and disregarded the Law of land.
She said that the well-settled principles regarding appreciation of Evidence of Rape Survivor were ignored by the Trial Court. She pointed out that Rape Survivor’s Testimony shall be viewed differently from testimonies of Witnesses in other Cases as mentioned in various Supreme Court Judgments.
She stated, “The Court spends a lot of time dissecting the Evidence of the Rape Survivor and disbelieving her simply because she did not state the full extent of the sexual acts at the time when she made the First Information Report (FIR) and when she made the disclosures to other sisters.”
She opined that the Court committed a serious error by disbelieving the Survivor because she failed to provide minute details of the Assault to other Witnesses. She also pointed out that the Court failed to understand her position.
She stated that FIR need not be an encyclopedia of facts and can simply have the broad parameters mentioned in it. Though the Nun did not mention details in the FIR, she gave the complete details in front of the Magistrate once she was comfortable.
She stated, “Therefore to nitpick and discredit the Testimony of Prosecution Witness 1 (the Rape Survivor) on the basis of insufficient materials given at the time of FIR, to my mind, was wholly unnecessary, bordering on Illegality and certainly showing no respect for Judgments of higher Courts, including the Kerala High Court.”
She further said that the Court failed to examine the Case with respect to Offence of ‘Aggravated Rape’ under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which deals with rape by a person in a position of trust or authority against a woman under his control.
Advocate John was of the opinion that “there was a predisposed and predetermined mindset that the Accused had to be Acquitted and every attempt was made to discredit the Survivor, a very very brave woman, including three of her corroborators.”
She expressed, “The Court disbelieved her version on oath and believed her earlier version despite she telling that it was a lie.”
Advocate John has been recently appointed as the Amicus Curiae by Delhi High Court in the Petition challenging the Exception to Marital Rape under Section 375 IPC.
Also read: Landmark Judgements that shaped Rape Laws in India