Madras HC Upholds Life Sentence for Church Pastor Convicted of Sexual Assault on Minor with Disability [Read Judgment]

Chennai: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging the conviction of a church pastor sentenced to life imprisonment for the aggravated penetrative sexual assault of a 17-year-old girl with intellectual and physical disabilities.

The two-judge bench comprising Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R. Poornima upheld the trial court’s verdict, finding no merit in the appellant’s contentions.

The incident occurred on May 3, 2022, when the victim, who suffers from 70% disability with moderate intellectual impairment and speech disability, was left under the care of Joseph Raja, a pastor who managed a church in Rajapalayam. According to the prosecution, the victim’s mother had left her daughter at the church around 9:00 PM while she went to meet an acquaintance. Upon her return, she found the accused fleeing the scene and discovered her daughter in distress, with her shirt unbuttoned and pants rolled up.

The next day, when questioned by her mother, the victim disclosed that the accused had subjected her to sexual assault. Following consultations with community members and after considerable hesitation, the victim’s mother filed a complaint with the All-Women Police Station on May 11, 2022, eight days after the alleged incident.

The Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under the POCSO Act at Srivilliputhur convicted the accused on April 20, 2023, under Sections 5(f) and 5(k) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, along with Section 92(d) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The trial court sentenced him to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life and imposed a fine of Rs. 1,00,000, with a default sentence of two years’ simple imprisonment.

The appellant’s counsel raised several grounds challenging the conviction. The defence argued that, despite the church being a common place with other people present, the prosecution failed to examine any independent eyewitnesses. It was contended that there was previous enmity between the victim’s mother and the accused’s family, and that the case had been falsely fabricated out of vengeance.

The defence particularly emphasized that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution’s case, as the examining doctor found no injuries on the victim’s breasts and no evidence of recent sexual intercourse. The appellant also contended that the victim’s alleged 70% physical disability was not established, as the medical report documented only mental disability without specifying the percentage of physical impairment.

Additionally, the defence highlighted the eight-day delay in filing the complaint and argued that the prosecution failed to examine crucial witnesses, including the accused’s family members who were allegedly present during the confrontation.

The Additional Public Prosecutor countered that the victim, examined as PW2, had categorically described the incident, which was corroborated by her mother (PW1). The prosecution emphasized that the victim suffered from moderate intellectual disability with an IQ of 36, significantly below the normal level of 90, making it implausible that she could have been tutored to give false testimony.

Regarding the medical evidence, the prosecution pointed out that the examining doctor (PW3) had confirmed that the victim’s hymen was not intact. The absence of visible injuries was explained by the fact that the medical examination was conducted eight days after the incident, during which time superficial injuries could have healed.

The prosecution submitted that the delay in filing the complaint was justified given the social stigma associated with sexual offences and the family’s initial confusion about the appropriate course of action. It was argued that such delays are common in POCSO cases and should not benefit the accused.

The High Court conducted a thorough analysis of the evidence on record and rejected all grounds raised by the appellant. The Court noted that there was no credible evidence of previous enmity between the families. On the contrary, the record established an amicable relationship, with the victim and her mother regularly attending the church and even staying overnight on the premises during domestic disputes.

Regarding the medical evidence, the Court relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh [(1996) 2 SCC 384], which held that the absence of injuries cannot lead to the conclusion that the incident did not occur or that consent was given, particularly when the victim is a minor.

The Court observed that the victim’s mental disability was adequately proved through the testimony of PW7 and the medical report Ex. P8, which documented an IQ of 36. The Court also held that both Section 5(k) of the POCSO Act and Section 92(d) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act refer to “physical or mental disability”, and therefore, proof of mental disability alone was sufficient for conviction under these provisions.

On the question of delay, the Court recognized the inherent hesitation victims of sexual assault experience, particularly when the perpetrator is a trusted community figure. The Court acknowledged that overcoming psychological and social barriers to approach the police is a process that understandably takes time, making the eight-day delay wholly immaterial.

“Regrettably, society has yet to overcome the stigma and moral judgment that continue to attach themselves to such disclosures. Even when a victim musters the courage to speak, she may not always find encouragement, or even acceptance, from her own parents, who may view such disclosure as undesirable or damaging,” the Court stated.

The Court thereafter addressed the ownership and management of the church, noting that defence witnesses themselves had admitted that the church was under the management of the accused’s father, thereby establishing the applicability of Section 5(f) of the POCSO Act.

Applying the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, the Court held that the accused had failed to rebut the presumption of guilt. The Court found that the cumulative effect of circumstances — including the victim’s unshaken testimony, medical findings, and the accused’s failure to provide a credible defence — established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

In its concluding observations, the Court emphasized that minor discrepancies in witness testimony should not be used to reject otherwise reliable prosecution evidence, citing State v. Saravanan [(2008) 17 SCC 587]. The Court found that the trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence and that the conviction suffered from no legal infirmity or evidentiary deficiency.

Appearance:
Counsel for Appellant: Mr. K. Samidurai, Advocate
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. R. Meenakshi Sundaram, Additional Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Joseph Raja v. The Inspector of Police, Crl.A (MD) No. 436 of 2023

[Read Judgment]