Kerala Court Acquits Former Bishop Franco Mulakkal In Nun Rape Case
Background of the Case
Franco Mulakkal, former Bishop of Jalandhar Diocese, was accused of repeatedly raping a nun between 2014 and 2016.
The case drew massive public attention due to its sensitive nature involving the Church, the victim being a nun, and allegations of abuse of power.
The trial took place in a Kerala court, and after thorough proceedings, the court acquitted the Bishop in April 2022.
Court’s Reasoning for Acquittal
1. Lack of Sufficient Evidence
The trial court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
There was no direct evidence or eyewitness testimony corroborating the alleged incidents of rape.
The complainant’s testimony, while sincere, had contradictions and inconsistencies.
2. Credibility of Witnesses
The defense challenged the credibility of the victim and other witnesses.
The court found that the complainant had changed her version multiple times during investigation and trial.
Other witnesses’ testimonies did not support the prosecution’s case conclusively.
3. Alibi and Defense Evidence
Franco Mulakkal presented an alibi supported by some evidence and testimonies.
The court held that the prosecution could not disprove the alibi satisfactorily.
4. Absence of Medical Evidence
No conclusive medical evidence was produced to prove sexual assault.
Delay in lodging the complaint and medical examination weakened the prosecution’s case.
5. Standard of Proof in Criminal Cases
The court emphasized the fundamental principle of “presumption of innocence”.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt — a high standard.
Given doubts in the evidence, acquittal was warranted.
Legal Principles Involved
1. Presumption of Innocence
Every accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Reasonable Doubt
If the evidence leaves reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused, the benefit must go to the accused.
This is a cardinal principle in criminal jurisprudence.
3. Complainant’s Testimony and Corroboration
The testimony of a victim in sexual offence cases is important but not always sufficient on its own.
Courts often seek corroboration in medical or other evidence, especially when inconsistencies are present.
Delay in reporting or filing complaints can affect credibility but is not always fatal.
Relevant Case Law Supporting These Principles
1. State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384
The Supreme Court held that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The court must consider whether there is any reason to doubt the complainant’s version.
2. Koppula Venkat Rao v. Public Prosecutor, AIR 1959 SC 19
The Court stressed the importance of corroboration of the victim’s testimony in sexual assault cases.
Lack of corroboration and presence of inconsistencies can lead to acquittal.
3. State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash, AIR 2000 SC 1889
The Court held that the evidence must be consistent and reliable.
Even minor contradictions can create reasonable doubt if they are material.
4. Tukaram S. Dighole v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 4 SCC 329
Delay in lodging the FIR is relevant to credibility but must be considered in the context of each case.
A delay can be justified in cases of sexual offences due to trauma and stigma.
Public and Legal Implications
The acquittal does not necessarily mean innocence, but that the prosecution failed to meet its legal burden.
The case highlighted challenges in proving sexual offences, especially when involving influential persons.
It also spurred discussions on institutional accountability and support for victims.
Summary
Former Bishop Franco Mulakkal was acquitted due to lack of conclusive evidence and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case.
The verdict underscores key criminal law principles: presumption of innocence, burden of proof, and reasonable doubt.
Relevant case law supports that an accused cannot be convicted on the basis of doubtful or inconsistent evidence.
The case highlights the need for strong, credible evidence in sexual offence trials, balanced with sensitivity to victims’ experiences.
RELATED Blog
0 comments