'Crime Pierces The Soul Of The Society': Kerala Court Sentences Temple Priest To Life Imprisonment For Rape Of 13Yr Old Stepdaughter

Special Judge Saleena VG Nair of the Fast-Track Court in Haripad, Alappuzha District, Kerala, convicted the priest for rape, sexual assault and criminal intimidation under the law, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

"The sordid episode of the convict stepfather, whose sacred duty was to ensure the protection and welfare of his own daughter like victim, subjected her to gratify his lust in a most cruel and barbaric manner, makes the crime of rape proved even more heinous.
The sexual offence committed was not only inhuman and barbaric, but it was a totally ruthless crime of rape and an affront to the human dignity of the society. The savage nature of the crime has shocked my judicial conscience.
He was a father figure for the victim. He exploited his control, authority and dominance over the victim. He exploited his domestic relationship and used the victim to satisfy his lust. Hence he deserves no leniency in the matter of punishment.
First accused is not entitled for any leniency as he has committed a crime which pierces the soul of the 114 society. The sentencing should be such that it sends a message to the perpetrators of crime and a solace to the tormented," the Judge said.

He has been convicted for offences contained under Sections 376(2)(f), 376(2)(i), 376(2)(k) and 376(2)(n), 377, and 506(1) of IPC and 5(n) read with 6, 5 (l) read with 6, 5(i) read with 6, 5(h) read with 6 of PoCSO Act and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Background

The priest (1^st accused) was the step-father of a 13-yr old girl (victim/PW1). The allegation was that he sexually harassed his step-daughter and threatened her that if she divulged his sexual torments to her mother (second accused), he will tell that it was she who touched his private parts and also caused fear in her that her mother will also be arrested and put in jail.

It was the prosecution's case that when the victim could not tolerate such repeated sexual harassments and sexual assaults, she informed her torments to her mother. However, her mother told her not to reveal it to anyone and that he is her father and that it's okay.

The matter finally came to light when the victim, along with her aunt and a relative lodged a FIR, revealing the sexual abuse inflicted on her by the priest.

The FIR was registered against the priest, under relevant provisions of IPC, POCSO Act and Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, and against the victim's mother for abetment (as she concealed the criminal acts of the priest).

Findings

Victim's age

Firstly, the Court determined the age of the victim in terms of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

As per this provision, for determining the standard of proof, the first preference is given to the date of birth certificate issued from the school or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the Examination Board, and in the absence of these documents, the extract of the birth certificate issued by the local authority is to be relied on to prove the age of the victim, and so on.

In this case, the prosecution had produced an extract of the school Admission Register. On perusing the same, the Court said,

"prosecution evidence shows that the victim had just crossed 12 years on the date of the first incident alleged, and as such, the victim was a 'child' as defined under the PoCSO Act."

Commission of Offence

After going through the material placed on record, such as medical reports and witness statements, the Court was convinced that "cogent evidence" exist to hold that the priest committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim.

It noted that the evidence of PW1 (victim) regarding the acts of the accused (priest) is corroborated by her previous statements to the doctor, her relatives and before the police, in her FIS, as provided under section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act.

This provision stipulates that in order to corroborate the testimony of a witness, any former statement made by such witness relating to the same fact at or about the time when the fact took place or before any authority legally competent to investigate the fact, may be proved.

Victim not a tutored witness

The accused (priest) had alleged that the victim's aunt had enmity towards him and thus has had tutored the victim. He further alleged that the other relative had nothing to do with his family and her involvement in the matter was bereft of any reasonableness.

The Court however rejected this contention with the following observation:

"Her (victim's) demeanor was noted during her examination. She was totally broken and depressed. When a suggestion was put to her that the accused did not do anything as she deposed, the Court noted that she emphatically replied in the negative and stated that he sexually assaulted her several times. Her evidence that she was afraid of the accused is cogent and convincing. She is a wholly reliable witness and even without any corroboration, her evidence regarding the commission of the offences by the accused can safely be acted upon by the Court."

It further noted that from the evidence on record, it is clear that the sudden and unexpected disclosure of the incidents to the police by the victim was not the result of any instigation of the relatives of her mother, as alleged by the accused, but it was the spontaneous outcome of the unbearable torture meted out to her from the first accused when she happened to reach the police station and got an opportunity and courage to disclose it.

Delay in lodging FIR not fatal

The priest had argued that there is an unexplained delay of over a year in lodging the FIR against the alleged offences.

The Court was however satisfied that there are sufficient and reasonable explanations for such delay.

It noted that the victim had been living with the two accused for more than a year and was under their control and custody.

"The accused are none other than her stepfather and mother. Her evidence shows that she was under constant intimidation by the first accused, and therefore, she was not in a position and mental frame to reveal the sexual assaults inflicted on her to any person.

It is evident from the sequence of the events narrated by PW1 that she was under the dominance, control and custody of the accused during the alleged 1 year period. On an analysis of the prosecution evidence it is seen that, the situation and circumstance of the victim was such that, at the age of two and half years PW1 lost her father and thereafter she and her three elder sisters were shifted to care homes and her mother also joined another institution. This indicates that there was no one in the family to give them Asylum, care or protection," the Court said.

It emphasized that the victim was totally dependent on the accused and was lodged under their dominance and custody.

"They were the only guardians she had. Her sisters were in care homes. She stated, while in the witness box, that she had not complained about her torments to any person due to fear and intimidation caused by the first accused.

PW1 has in her cross examination stated that she had made attempts to inform the school authorities, but the accused had managed to convince them that she was a mentally disturbed person. It is only normal in such a circumstance that she was not in a position to reach the police. It is also to be noted that she was aged 13 yrs only. Her step father and mother are the alleged tormentors and the perpetrators of the alleged incidents and tortures. It has been settled through various decisions of the Supreme Court and High Courts that the effect of delay in lodging complaints has to be considered in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case," the Court said while holding that the delay of more than one year in this case is not fatal.

Mother's culpability

So far as the victim's mother is concerned, the Court was of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove that she had any knowledge regarding the offences committed by the first accused, until the last incident.

The Court further held that there is absolutely no evidence of sharing of common intention by both the accused in committing any of the alleged offences. "Thus, the second accused is not at all constructively liable for the offences committed by the first accused."

It further opined, "The prosecution or PW1 has also no case that she had intentionally aided or assisted the first accused in the commission of penetrative sexual assaults or by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that offence. Since the second accused failed to report the matter to the police when the last incident was reported to her she is liable only for the same."

The Court held that the prosecution had succeeded in proving that the second accused was informed by PW1 about the last incident of sexual assault by the 1st accused, but she failed to report the same to the Police and thereby committed the offence under Section 19 of the POCSO Act, punishable under Section 21 of the said Act.

It then proceeded to note that the mitigating circumstances in her case outweigh the aggravating circumstances, and hence she deserves leniency in the matter of punishment.

"So far as the second convict mother is concerned, the situation is totally different. It has come out in evidence that her husband died unexpectedly, leaving behind her family consisting of four girl children as well, and the youngest of the children, the victim, was just two and a half years at the time of his death. She had no other option but to entrust the children to care homes and she herself started working in one of the care homes. In these circumstances, the accused, who was working in the institution wherein she had joined, started intimacy with her, which resulted in their marriage. Her family accepted him, trusted him," the Court noted.

It thus limited the second accused' punishment to the period of sentence already undergone by her during Trial.

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order