Kerala's Kottayam additional sessions court, which acquitted Jalandhar Bishop Franco Mulakkal in the nun rape case, has cited contradictions in the statement of the complainant, delay in reporting, and lapses in the investigation in finding corroboratory evidence as reasons for the Bishop's acquittal.
According to the 289-page judgment by Additional Sessions Judge G Gopakumar, there were contradictions in the versions given by the nun about the rape allegations against the bishop to various witnesses in the case.
The judgment said, the grievance projected by the nun to her companion sisters was that the accused was taking retaliatory steps for not yielding to his sexual desires, whereas her version before the court was that she was forced into sexual intercourse with the accused on 13 occasions. There was no mention of penile penetration in the first information statement as well as the history narrated to the doctor. These inconsistent versions at different points of time to different persons pose questions about her statements' credibility. The prosecution failed to give a proper explanation for the inconsistent version.
The court also said that apart from the testimony of the victim there was no corroborative evidence to prove the prosecution case. The prosecution failed to produce the mobile phone used by the victim which would have provided some input into the alleged vulgar messages sent by the accused. The explanation offered for not producing the phone is thoroughly unsatisfactory. The laptop too was not subjected to scientific analysis, as it is claimed that the hard disk of the system was damaged.
The judge also said that the victim was found to be having close interactions with the accused on the days after the alleged sexual assault. She had traveled long distance with the accused in his car and had attended many functions.
Though the prosecution attempted to explain the two to four years delay in complaining, there was no satisfactory explanation. There were enough circumstances to prove that the nun started complaining about the sexual abuse and sexual overtures of the accused after the commencement of the enquiry ordered in the complaint of her cousin Jaya alleging that the nun had illicit relationship with her husband, the court said.
As held by the Supreme Court, the court order said, when it was not feasible to separate truth from falsehood, when grain and chaff were inextricably mixed up, the only available course was to discard the evidence in toto. In the said circumstances, the court is unable to place reliance on the solitary testimony of the victim and to hold the accused guilty of the offences charged against him.
Watch the latest DH Videos here: