KOCHI: The survivor in the nun rape case and the state government on Wednesday approached the Kerala High Court seeking to quash the order of the Kottayam Additional District and Sessions Court acquitting Bishop Franco Mulakkal in the case.
In its appeal, the state government argued that the evidence given by the survivor, corroborated by the deposition of several witnesses and the documentary evidence, proved the nun was subjected to unnatural offence and rape by the former head of the Latin Catholic diocese of Jalandhar. The nun was then the mother superior of St Francis Mission Home, Kuravilangad, and the accused wielded power and control over the home.
The presence of the accused on the days when the rape and sexual assault occurred was proved by the prosecution by documentary evidence. “Without appreciating the evidence of the prosecution in the correct perspective, the trial court misconstrued facts and law and gave unwarranted acquittal to the accused, absolving him from the charges including rape,” the petition stated. The prosecution alleged the survivor was raped 13 times from May 5, 2014, to September 23, 2016, in the guest room of St Francis Mission Home.
Appeal: Judge took up case with predetermined mind
It also stated the trial judge, without examining the evidence cited by the prosecution, approached the case with a predetermined mind to acquit the accused. Every attempt was made to discredit the survivor, by wrongly considering the evidence.
The judge ought to have considered that the survivor chose to leave the congregation forever rather than fight with the Church or its superior authority or the bishop for assaulting her. The court gave undue importance to the first information statement not mentioning intricate details of the crime.
The state said when the virginity of a nun is violated, the social stigma that she suffers will be higher than that of an ordinary person. She will have to abandon her nunship forever; she would be ostracised. The trial court ought to have considered the fact that the victim made self-restraint in disclosing the real incident till she decided to start the legal battle foreseeing the consequences that follow for the rest of her life. This cannot be characterised as inconsistent in her statements to different persons and thereby label her as an unreliable witness.