Kottiyoor Rape Case: Why Did Kerala High Court Reduce The Sentence Imposed On Former Catholic Priest? [Read Judgment]

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday reduced the sentence imposed on former Catholic priest Robin Mathew Vadakkumchery from 20 years to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment coupled with a fine of Rupees one lakh. Justice R. Narayana Pisharadi confirmed the guilt of the accused while partly allowing the appeal.Here are the key points in the judgment issued today: Sentence Imposed:The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC and under Section 3(a) r/w Sections 4, 5(f) and 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. However, the High Court held as such:(i) Conviction of the appellant/accused by the trial court for the offence under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code is altered to conviction under Section 376(1). [Section 376(1) prescribes punishment for rape whereas Section 376(2)(f) prescribes punishment for rape committed by a person in a position of trust/ authority towards the woman.](ii) Conviction of the appellant/accused by the trial court under Section 3(a) (penetrative sexual assault) read with Section 4 and under Sections 5(f) and 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act is confirmed.(iii) In supersession of the sentence awarded by the trial court for different offences, the appellant is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 5(j)(ii) r/w Section 6 of the POCSO Act.(iv) In view of the provisions contained in Section 42 of the POCSO Act and Section 71 of IPC, no separate sentence is awarded for the other offences proved to have been committed by the appellant. (v) The appellant is entitled to get set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. What Is The Kottiyoor Rape Case?The appellant was the Vicar of St. Sebastian Church at Kottiyoor in Kannur District where the survivor used to attend the Holy Mass. After the Mass, she used to do some computer work in a room attached to the church in which the accused was residing. The prosecution case was that when she was in this room, he used to sexually assault her and warned her not to disclose the matter to anyone. One day in the month of May 2016, the accused allegedly induced the victim girl to come to his room and he committed rape and penetrative sexual assault on her. As a result, the victim girl became pregnant. When The Matter Came To LightAlthough an attempt was made to hush up the matter, the Child Welfare Committee picked up the incident and informed the police. When the police recorded her statement, the survivor alleged that her own father had committed rape on her.However, further investigation revealed that the appellant was responsible for sexually assaulting her. The DNA analysis report also revealed that the accused was the biological father of the child born to the teenager. The appellant was accordingly indicted and a charge sheet was filed against ten accused. Later on, all the other accused were acquitted by the Supreme Court and trial court respectively except the appellant, who was the first accused in the case. 'Law is Dynamic': Proving The Girl's MinorityIt was argued by the appellant that Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 for determination of the age of the victim would cause prejudice to the accused. However, the Court dismissed this contention claiming the very purpose of enacting the POCSO Act was to ensure that children of tender age are not abused.The Court found that provisions contained in the JJ Act prevailing at the relevant time for determination of the age of the juvenile or child in conflict with law can be adopted for determination of the age of the victim also."I find no logic in finding that, even after the repeal of a statute and even after a new statute coming into force, the provisions of the repealed statute have to be followed even in a case where the incident has taken place after the new statute came into force. Law cannot be static. Law is dynamic and it is expected to diligently keep pace with time. It has to evolve and change with the needs of the society."In fact, when the incident has taken place after the coming into force of the JJ Act, 2015, adopting the provisions of that Act to determine the age of the victim does not cause any prejudice to the accused. Even going by the provision of JJ Rules, 2007, the prosecution triumphantly proved the age of the survivor and it was established that the incident took place when she was a minor. Was It Consensual Sex? The case took an interesting turn when the survivor refused to completely support the prosecution case in her examination. According to her, they engaged in sexual intercourse with her consent and she was not aware that she would become pregnant after sexual intercourse. In cross-examination, she categorically reiterated that it was with her full consent that the accused had sexual intercourse with her. The appellant also admitted to having...

Kottiyoor Rape Case: Why Did Kerala High Court Reduce The Sentence Imposed On Former Catholic Priest? [Read Judgment]

Hannah M Varghese

Tags