J&K&L High Court Upholds Conviction Of 84-Year-Old "Guru" For Rape Of Minor Girl

The Court held that the evidence on record, including the statement of the prosecutrix, medical evidence and DNA examination, sufficiently connected the appellant with the commission of the offence punishable under Section 376 RPC. It observed that the conviction recorded by the Trial Court was based on appreciation of the evidence led during trial.

The Court was hearing an appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Reasi, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 376 RPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years along with fine.

A Single Bench of Justice M.A. Chowdhary observed,

“it is a case, where a godman/guru/swami, revered by the inhabitants of the village, that too in his advanced age, had sexually ravished a girl of a tender age suffering from the deformity of being a dwarf and there being sufficient and credible evidence in the form of ocular as well as documentary and expert evidence, it can safely be held on the basis of prosecution evidence that the appellant/convict had committed the offence punishable under Section 376 RPC upon the prosecutrix.”

The appellant had argued that the prosecution evidence suffered from contradictions, exaggerations and improvements. It was contended that there was delay in lodging the FIR, doubts regarding the age of the prosecutrix, and that the DNA evidence had not been properly established. The appellant sought setting aside of the conviction and acquittal.

The State opposed the appeal and submitted that the appellant had sexually assaulted a minor girl who had been adopted as a guru by the family. It was argued that the statement of the prosecutrix was supported by other evidence, including DNA evidence, which established the connection of the appellant with the offence.

Background:

The prosecution case, as recorded by the Court, was that Brahmanand Saraswati, who used to reside in the house of a local resident, was adopted as a guru by the prosecutrix and her family. The prosecutrix used to provide milk and food to him. According to the prosecution, when she went to provide milk and food, the appellant found her alone and committed rape upon her and thereafter repeated the acts.

The prosecution alleged that the appellant threatened the prosecutrix with consequences if she disclosed the incident to anyone. Subsequently, she became pregnant and later disclosed the incident to her parents, following which she delivered a dead female child.

On the basis of the allegations, FIR was registered at Police Station Reasi under Section 376 RPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. During investigation, the prosecutrix was medically examined, statements were recorded, the age of the prosecutrix was verified from school records and DNA examination of the appellant and the dead child was conducted.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 376 RPC and sentenced him to ten years rigorous imprisonment along with fine. The appellant thereafter approached the High Court challenging the conviction.

Court's Observation:

While examining the challenge to conviction, the High Court considered the testimony of the prosecutrix. The Court noted that she had stated that the appellant was known to her, that the people of the locality including her parents had accepted him as their guru, and that she used to go to provide milk and food to him. She stated that after being offered tea, she became unconscious and the appellant committed rape upon her.

The Court found that during cross-examination, nothing tangible could be brought out to demolish the version of the prosecutrix regarding the commission of rape. It observed that the surrounding circumstances and supporting evidence were sufficient to rely upon her testimony.

The Court also considered the evidence of the mother and other witnesses regarding the disclosure of the incident, the relationship of the appellant with the family and the subsequent events following the pregnancy of the prosecutrix.

While dealing with the delay in lodging the FIR, the Court held that the delay could be understood in the circumstances of the case, considering the age of the prosecutrix, her vulnerability and the influence of the appellant as a godman in the locality. The Court observed,

“...when the prosecutrix was a minor child of less than 17 years and was also suffering a deformity of being a dwarf as against the appellant/convict, who was a godman in the locality, who has a considerable influence in the society and having been threatened by him, the delay in lodging the FIR can be understandable and does not seem to be fatal for the prosecution case.”

The Court rejected the challenge to the DNA evidence and noted that the forensic expert had proved the report. It observed that the DNA of the dead baby delivered by the prosecutrix and the accused matched and the expert had confirmed that the appellant was the biological father of the child.

The Court further held that the requirement of the prosecutrix's testimony being of “sterling quality” arises where there is no supporting evidence. In the present case, the Court noted the existence of medical and DNA evidence along with other prosecution material. It observed,

“In view of there being a conclusive medical and DNA tests and the other evidence led by the prosecution with regard to the presence of the convict and the visiting of the prosecutrix to him for providing milk and food, the statement of the prosecutrix even if not of sterling quality has to be relied upon.”

On the question of sentence, the Court noted that the Trial Court had awarded ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine. It held that considering the repeated acts of rape, the appellant was liable under clause (n) of sub-section (2) of Section 376 RPC. However, since the State had not challenged the sentence, the Court maintained the sentence awarded by the Trial Court.

The High Court thus dismissed the appeal against his conviction under Section 376 RPC and upheld the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court. The sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment along with fine was maintained.

Case Title: Brahmanand Saraswati v. State (UT of J&K) & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 326

Appearances

Appellant: Vasudha Sharma, Advocate

Respondents: Sumeet Bhatia, GA

Click here to read/download Judgment