An appeal challenging the acquittal of the Bishop of Jalandhar Franco Mulakkal, in the nun rape case was presented before the Kerala High Court on Tuesday. Division bench comprising Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran issued a notice has also been to Mulakkal in the case.

The Bishop was accused of raping a nun from the Missionaries of Jesus Convent in Kuravilangad several times during his visits to the convent between the years 2014 and 2016.

The Additional District and Sessions Court had acquitted Bishop Mulakkal in the case in January as the survivors testimony could not be relied on.

The prosecution, stated that the testimony produced by the survivor, was a documentary evidence proving that the nun was subjected to rape by the accused, who wielded power and control over the St. Francis Mission Home, on different dates from 6/5/14 to 23/9/16.

The evidence also proves that the presence of the accused on the said days has been totally overlooked by the judge while making acquittal.

Also Read: Gauhati High Court disposed PIL after petitioners grievance of investigation by an independent agency were met

The filed  appeal runs through the entire episodic events, as to how the power and position were misused to abuse the rape survivor, making her weak

The prosecution stated that the nun was raped 13 times between 5/5/14 and 23/9/16 in the guest house where the Bishop had stayed. As her vow of chastity was butchered time and again.

The nun gatherered some courage before finally opposing the Bishop, who had started to use different retaliatory methods like filing multiple false cases against her in several places, including Punjab.

No the state has filed an appeal in this regard where they have filed a complaint against wrong judgement.Now the  Senior Advocate, S. Sreekumar will be representing the nun in the appeal before the High Court.

Also Read:

• Allahabad High Court stays criminal case proceedings in Judicial Magistrate court in Jhansi
• Forceful eviction of top Government official cannot be done: Supreme Court
• Supreme Court hears the submissions by NSEL in the petition filed challenging the Bombay high Court order

Coming down heavily on the National Investigation Agency (NIA) for their lack of effort in gathering independent evidence and improper recording of confessions, the Kerala High Court has acquited two prime accused in the 2006 twin bomb blast case of Kozhikode district. 

A Division Bench of Justices K Vinod Chandran and C Jayachandran on Thursday observed that there was no reliable evidence regarding preparation or commission of the crime that would incriminate the accused beyond any  reasonable doubt. 
The Bench further noted that the approver’s evidence, relied on heavily by the prosecution, was unreliable and uncorroborated, under Section 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act.

The case pertained to the twin bomb blasts in the Kozhikode KSRTC and Mofussil bus stands on March 3, 2006.

Nine people were arrested for allegedly conspiring, planning and executing the twin blasts, including Thadiyantevida Nazeer and Shafas.

Investigation into the blasts was first taken over by the Crime Branch Criminal Investigation Department (CBCID) and later by NIA.

The Special Court for NIA Cases, Kerala, Ernakulam had found Nazeer and Shafas guilty of the offences under Sections 16(1) & 18 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (UAPA), Sections 124(A) and 153(A) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 4(b) of Explosive Substances Act, 1884.

The Court stated that as per the mandate of the Supreme Court, there was a twin-test that must be satisfied before accepting an approver’s evidence, which included the test of reliability of the approver and the test of corroboration.
The Approver did not speak of any long standing close relationship with any of the accused and it was very unlikely that such a casual acquaintance would be summoned, when a seditious act of explosion in a public place was planned, noted the Court.
The Bench further said that disclosures made by the approver was when the NIA took him under their custody, before which itself he had expressed his desire to turn approver.

The Court opined that if 

there was no independent evidence of the crime, a recovery under Section 27 or a conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, could not by itself or solely result in a conviction.

The Court opined that Section 164 statement of the approver, especially in the teeth of its finding on the credibility of the approver, did not offer any corroboration.

Further, the Court found that all the disclosures recorded, contained a confession regarding the involvement in the bomb blast, which was inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26; whether it be for the purposes of Section 27 or Section 8.

When the portion of the disclosure that offends Section 25 and 26 are eschewed, then the disclosures lead to no discovery of fact having a connection with the crime and the conduct too has no bearing.

Even in the chief examination, the Court discovered that there was no attempt made by the prosecution to call upon the approver to identify each of the accused standing in the dock.

On the strength of these findings and the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court acquitted Nazeer and Shafas.