Bishop Franco Case: Why the Kottayam Court's Judgment Is Problematic

Bishop Franco acquitted in rape case: Verdict raises concerns | The Big Story

More than three years after the Catholic Church was rocked by rape allegations, in a shocking judgement on 14 January, the Additional District and Sessions Court in Kottayam acquitted ex-Bishop Franco Mulakkal of rape charges filed against him by a nun.

(Photo: Kamran Akhter/The Quint)

More than three years after the Catholic Church was rocked by rape allegations, in a shock judgment on 14 January, the Additional District and Sessions Court in Kottayam acquitted Bishop Franco Mulakkal of rape charges filed against him by a nun.

In a 289-page verdict, Additional Sessions Judge G Gopakumar held the victim’s statement as “inconsistent” and that the “prosecution has failed to give proper explanation for the inconsistent version.”

However, the verdict saw some bizarre reasoning to arrive at this conclusion, from an inexplicable dismissal of important disclosures by the survivor to other nuns to calling the primary supporting witnesses in the case “unreliable.”

In her allegations, the survivor stated that the Bishop had raped her 13 times between 2014 and 2016. However, what followed was a harrowing experience both inside and outside the court for the survivor and the nuns who came out in support of her.

And the way the trial took place – with multiple witnesses brought forward by the prosecution who supported the survivor's testimony, Kerala Police's thorough investigation in the case – the final verdict outraged not only women activists but also the legal community, given the several loopholes in the judgment.

In today’s episode, we are going to take a look at the judgment, the reasoning the court gives for acquitting Bishop Franco Mulakkal, and why it is problematic.

Joining me today to unpack the verdict is Vakasha Sachdev, The Quint’s Legal Editor and Sister Lucy Kalappura, who had supported the survivor from the start.