Misjudgment Background: Lawsuit | Thiruvananthapuram News

Thiruvananthapuram: After going through the nearly 250-page detailed judgment in the nun’s rape case, the prosecution has learned that they have focused on discrediting the survivor over minor differences in various statements, which is not acceptable and the judgment completely missed the context.
Based on at least seven points in the judgment, the prosecution has decided to appeal, for which the final legal opinion is awaited, senior police department sources said. “The judgment seems to have given a color of consent to the act which was not even raised by the accused. Moreover, minor changes in the deposition are a sign of credibility when it is the parrot version that must be discarded. This is the principle adopted by the Supreme Court. The court appears to have misunderstood this fact,” sources said.
After a detailed analysis of the verdict at the highest level of the police, the general opinion is that all prosecution witnesses have been discredited as unbelievable on minor grounds and this is not acceptable. “For example, an explanation was given by PW2 (a nun and witness) to her superiors to avoid disciplinary action for cooperating with the investigation. In order to escape expulsion from her congregation, she gave a response in which she said that she had made the statement under pressure from the police and that she could not be prosecuted. This was used to conclude that she is not a reliable witness. The circumstances in which she gave the letter received no appreciation,” the sources added.
The social background of the nun and the background that led to different expressions about her experience were also not appreciated, it was felt.
“Consent must be unequivocal verbal or non-verbal for the sexual act and it must be proven by the accused. Traveling by car or attending a reception is no coincidence. Rather, it should have been considered his bad luck,” the sources said.
Investigation Supervising Officer and then Kottayam SP Hari Sankar had openly spoken out against the verdict citing that the real explanations regarding the delay and aspect of the fiduciary relationship with the accused and its repercussions on the state mental health of the survivor were not appreciated by the court.
Other officers who analyzed the verdict also felt that the court had accepted that the defendant is the supreme authority over the survivor and has the power to influence her life. In such circumstances, the inability to resist or delay reporting, etc., is quite natural.
“It has to be seen in context. The judgment completely missed the context,” the sources said.
Senior police officers also expressed surprise that none of the rulings presented by the prosecution in its memorandum were mentioned in the judgment.

Comments are closed.