Kerala Court Holds Former BJP Leader Guilty In Palathayi Rape Case, Sentences Him To Life Imprisonment

Smt. Jalajarani M.T., Special Judge, found him guilty of the offences under Sections 376AB, 376(2) (f), 354B of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 5(f), (l) and (m) r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 376AB IPC.

The Court had observed:

“in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of PW1/victim, which is credible, finds, corroboration with from the deposition of her friends, relatives, her statement recorded u/s 164 of CrPC as well as the Medical evidence and the FSL report. All these pieces of evidence, when read together, form a cogent and compelling chain pointing towards the guilt of the accused.”

The prosecution allegation was that Padmarajan committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault and rape on the victim girl (PW1) aged 10 ½ years inside the school toilet on three occasions while he was a Malayalam teacher in the U.P. School in Palathayi.

Padmarajan claimed that he was innocent and that was falsely implicated due to political and communal animosity for his social media postings in support of the Citizenship Amendment Bill. At the time, he alleged, some of the parents of the school had threatened to transfer their children from the school, forcing Padmarajan to delete the posts.

The defence also argued that the victim was not a 'sterling' witness as her statement was inconsistent, with the FIS being contradictory to the case made out before the Police and the Magistrate. According to them, the victim had added a new story with another person also involved in her assault and attempted murder, which was stated to have been committed in a house in Poyiloor.

The prosecution on the other hand submitted the victim's family had no political background and the 10-year-old was not aware of the Citizenship Bill. It was also pointed that there was no evidence to show that Padmarajan made such posts or that parents approached the school opposing the same.

It was also stated by the prosecution that Padmarajan had attempted to divert the investigation using his political holdings and the victim had to give her statement more than 10 times, which may have resulted in minor discrepancies due to the mental and physical harassment faced.

After examining the evidence and considering the evidence, the Special Judge noted that there were shortcomings in the investigation into the case due to Padmarajan's influence. It also remarked that there was considerable delay in arresting him and that as per the prosecution case, it was finally done due to the strong protest by the local people.

“The fact that, the Investigating Officers in this case have been continuously replaced and the fact that, the survivor and the prosecution have take up the matter before the Hon'ble Apex Court challenging the way in which the investigation is going on and the visit of prominent women political leader of a ruling political party to the house of the victim shows that there were many short comings and the interference of external forces especially political intervention in the matter,” the Court observed.

It further noted that though this case should have been like any other POCSO case with one or two investigating officers, there were high ranking officers from five districts that investigated the case.

With respect to the argument that there were contradictions in the statements given by the victim before various authorities, the Court remarked that the alleged contradictions were not material. It also noted that the victim had categorically deposed that her statements recorded by the police and the counsellors were not read over to her.

It observed:

“In the case on hand, the child was in the dock from morning to evening for 4 days for the purpose of cross examination and her deposition is over 250 pages long so, there is no doubt that the continuous interrogation by the police personnels, counsellors and her examination before court would really damaged her mental health. If so, the contradictions occurred in her testimony is natural and the same will not affect the core of the prosecution case.”

The Court remarked that in the present case, the child victim was subjected to severe interrogation for hours, on many days. In the judgment, the Court also highlighted some of the questions asked by the counsellors, apparently with a view to support the defence version.

It observed:

“Evidently, a 10 year old child was subjected to interrogation for hours without break for days. While the counsellor's reports in PoCSO cases are always confidential and do not release the report in any case, in this case the counsellors have submitted a very precious report having 69 pages including the questions which they put to the victim and the answers given by her. On going through each questions put forward by the counsellors, it would see that they were working as another investigation agency. The questions asked by them were mostly about the merits of the case. Moreover, the questions were obscene ,vulgar and offensive to the child and they forget about their duty also. On going through the questions asked by the counsellors, one will understand that their attempt was to support the defence contentions and to substantiate the case of sexual assault by an unknown person at Poyiloor.”

The Court also noted that the victim's relative also deposed that the child was subjected to mental harassment from the counsellors, who even asked her about Padmarajan's private parts.

It thus criticised the manner of the investigation in the case and observed:

“On going through the statements of the witnesses, documents and other materials produced in this case, it would see that the defence did not need to go through much trouble because all the contentions that the accused needs to raise in the case are there in the statements of the witnesses, documents and other evidence. In order to prove the contention of the accused that he was not at the scene of occurrence on the days the incidents have taken place and he has been falsely implicating in the case, there was no need for him to bring any such evidence because the investigating officers collected everything he needs for proving his defence.”

The defence had also made out a case that Padmarajan was on casual leave on the days of the incident to take care of her sister. But the Court noted that there were discrepancies in the attendance and leave registers maintained by the school.

It observed that certain entries were re-written after correcting with whitener and that the registers probably were manipulated by the school to support Padmarajan. The Court found that the registers could not relied on since the same does not contain any signatures of the teachers and that the register was merely a note book, which does not reveal who its custodian is.

One of the crucial pieces of evidence, which the Court had considered, was the medical evidence given by the Gynecologist who examine the victim. The Gynecologist had deposed that the victim's hymen was torn, and that there was fungal infection. Since the patient did not attain menarche at the time of examination but had history of bleeding from vagina, it can only be due to trauma inside vagina. The Court rejected the defence's suggestion that the tearing of hymen is due to cycling or participation in sports since no evidence was adduced to prove the same.

The defence had also raised a contention that the victim's bleeding was due to piles and menstruation. However, the Court remarked that the medical evidence did not point to the same and refused the accept the argument.

After finding Padmarajan guilty of all the offences alleged, the Court imposed life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh for the offence under Section 376AB. For the offences under Section 5(f), (l) of the POCSO Act, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years each and fine of Rs. 50,000 each. The sentences are to run concurrently with the life sentence commencing after the term sentence.

No separate sentence was given to the accused for the offences under Section 376(2)(f) IPC and Sections 5(m) and 6(1) of the POCSO Act. The Court also ordered for the Material Objects in the case to be destroyed if no appeal is filed.

The District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) was directed to conduct enquiry as to the compensation to be awarded to the victim.

Case No: SC No. 472 of 2021

Case Title: State v. Padmarajan K.

Click to Read/Download Judgment