Kerala HC dismisses Bishop Mulakkal’s plea in nun rape case

Kochi, July 10: The Kerala High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by Catholic Bishop Franco Mulakkal, an accused in the nun rape case, challenging the lower court rejection of his discharge application.

The Court added that ascertaining whether the complainant’s case was concocted or true would have to be decided in a trial, after evaluating the evidence.

“If such a case is thrown out at the threshold it will give a wrong message to the right-thinking people in the society.”

In her complaint, the complainant has alleged that she was raped multiple times by the Bishop, who threatened to have her killed if she made the incidents known.

The incidents, recorded to have taken place between 2014 and 2016, were finally reported to the Police in 2018. On the basis of the nun’s complaint, an FIR was lodged and investigations ordered. The charge sheet in the matter was finally filed on April 9 last year.

After this, Bishop Mulakkal applied to the Additional Sessions Judge-1 (Kottayam) for a discharge under the Criminal Procedure Code, on the ground that he was falsely implicated and that there were no grounds to proceed further against him. This application was dismissed in March this year.

In hearings before the High Court Fr. Mulakkal through his counsel Advocate Alex Joseph claimed that the lower Court had “merely relied on the statement of the Sister (complainant) and dismissed his application”.

Arguing further, he averred that the facts did not disclose a prima facie case that could merit prosecution. The sister’s “contradictory statements” were the only material available to support the rape allegations, the judgment records Advocate Joseph as having contended.

Further, Mulakkal submitted that the allegations have been “maliciously” fabricated as a response to his institution of “disciplinary proceedings” against the complainant.

Mulakkal also accused the lower court of having conducted a “mini-trial” of his case when rejecting his application.

Special Prosecutor for Atrocities against Women and Children Ambika Devi argued that the lower court was fully justified in dismissing Mulakkal’s discharge application.

Referring to the records of statements made by witnesses, she submitted that there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against Mulakkal. The investigation was conducted fairly with relevant material duly collected; Prosecutor Devi told the Court.

Based on the recorded statements of the complainant, the High Court made a prima facie observation that Franco Mulakkal appeared to have misused his official capacity to silence the complainant for two years resulting in the delay in her filing the complaint.

“The records would prima facie indicate that his (Mulakkal’s) supreme position had made the Sister to suffer the mental agony and trauma she had faced from the hands of the petitioner silently and when the trauma and harassment had become intolerable, she decided to lodge the complaint… The records further reveal that she also entertained a fear and anguish that the petitioner may endanger her family members as he had threatened her with dire consequences and that was also a reason for the delay.”

While dismissing the discharge plea, the High Court observed that a discharge plea can be allowed only where there are glaring circumstances to show that the prosecution has not produced sufficient material to proceed against the accused.

On the other hand, “when materials prima facie show that the accused had committed the alleged offenses, it is doubtless that he is not entitled to a discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure”, the Court said.