‘Stigma silences victims’: Madras High Court upholds pastor’s conviction in disabled minor girl assault case

The high court further pointed out that even if the survivor “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”.

Highlighting the need to overcome these deep-rooted “psychological and social barriers”, the court noted that approaching the police is neither immediate nor effortless for survivors and their families, and this process understandably consumes time.

‘Didn’t shake the core of prosecution’

The court made the following observation after examining the facts, evidence placed on record and testimony of the survivor:

• The case attracted the provisions of the POCSO Act and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, as the victim was a minor with moderate intellectual disability.
• The accused’s claim that the survivor’s mother had falsely implicated him by tutoring the victim was rejected, as a girl with such mental disability cannot be successfully tutored to falsely implicate the accused.
• Since reporting sexual offences is far from a simple or mechanical act, the delay of eight days between the occurrence and lodging of the complaint was held to be “wholly immaterial”.
• The mental disability of the victim is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• All discrepancies pointed out by the accused were found to be minor in nature and did not in any manner “shake the core” of the prosecution’s case.

• The prosecution’s evidence was found to be reliable, cogent, and trustworthy.
• Considering the survivor’s age, her unshaken testimony, and medical findings, the court held that the conviction and sentence were proportionate to the gravity of the offence.

‘Previous enmity, 8 days delay’

Appearing for the pastor, advocate K Samidurai submitted the following major arguments opposing the conviction of his client:

• The church was a common place, and there were several people at that time, yet the prosecution failed to examine any independent eyewitness to prove the guilt of his client beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The trial court failed to take into consideration the fact that the medical evidence did not support the case of the prosecution.
• The minor’s physical disability was also not proved by the prosecution.
• The trial court failed to take into consideration the delay of eight days in filing the complaint. The prosecution also failed to provide a valid reason for this delay.
• The prosecution failed to examine the pastor’s mother-in-law, who was present when the survivor’s mother left her in their custody.
• It was submitted that the pastor’s wife, father and other close relatives were present when the survivor allegedly confronted him about the crime, but none of them were examined by the prosecution to prove its case.
• The Church, which was the alleged place of occurrence, was not owned or run by the accused, and the prosecution also failed to prove the contrary.
• There was previous enmity between the parties, and the case was filed to wreak vengeance.

‘Delay no excuse to escape clutches of law’

Additional Public Prosecutor R Meenakshi Sundaram, on the contrary, submitted that the minor had categorically described the alleged incident. He also submitted other key arguments:

• The minor girl had properly described the incident by way of both actions and words.
• The medical examination report proves that the accused had subjected the minor girl to sexual assault.
• The evidence might not reveal the injuries of the survivor as she was subjected to medical examination after 8 days of the occurrence
• The delay of 8 days occurred as the parents of the minor girl were scared of the social implications and consequences of the same.
• The parents of the minor were not aware of the next step following the incinet and they sought the help of several other members of the village due to their helplessness and finally filed a complaint.
• Delay is immaterial in POCSO cases and the accused cannot take this as a defence to escape from the “clutches of law”.
• The minor’s physical disability percentage was not explicitly stated, but her mental disability was proved, which is sufficient to convict the accused under the POCSO Act.

What was the case?

In May 2022, at around 09:00 pm, the minor and her mother went to the Church where they usually go. This Church was run by the aacused who was the pastor of the religious institution.

The mother went to meet someone and left her daughter under the care of the accused and his family members while she had to go out and meet a person.

When she returned, she allegedly found her daughter in a pathetic condition. The pastor allegedly ran away from the church in panic.

Subsequently, the minor told her mother about the sexual assault, and she filed a complaint.