CASE TITLE:
Sister Sephy Vs Central Bureau Of Investigation
DATE OF ORDER:
23rd JUNE, 2022
JUDGE(S):
Hon’ble Justice K.Vinod Chandran & Justice C. Jayachandran
PARTIES:
Petitioner: Sister Sephy
Respondent: Central Bureau Of Investigation
IMPORTANT PROVISION
Section 161 CrPC
SUBJECT
As an interim measure, the Kerala High Court granted bail to convicts Sister Sephy and Father Thomas Kottoor on Thursday, suspending their sentences until the appeal in the 1992 Sister Abhaya murder case is heard. In December 2020, a CBI Court in Thiruvananthapuram found them guilty of murder and sentenced them to life in prison.
BRIEF FACTS
- Adakka Raju, who testified as PW3, was an important witness in the case. He was a thief who claimed to have seen the first accused priest, Father Kottoor, at the convent late at night. The CBI Court relied on his testimony to conclude that Kottoor was present at the convent at the time of the crime.
- The High Court noted that Adakka Raju's deposition appeared to be suspect. The Court also noted that PW3's Section 161 statement was taken 15 years after the alleged crime. Kottoor, who was arrested in 2008, was not identified in a Test Identification Parade.
- Prosecution Witness 6, Kalarcode Venugopalan Nair, a social worker, testified before the trial court that Kottoor confessed to him about his affair with Sister Sephy. "This is styled as an extra-judicial confession; quite strange given that the crime alleged is murder rather than lewd immorality," the Court noted.
- "We cannot help but notice that A1 is not being tried for an illicit relationship with a woman, even a nun, and even if such a relationship is established, it does not establish his involvement in the crime, unless there are other compelling circumstances," the Court added. The Court also considered the fact that PW3 did not mention Sister Sephy's name in his statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC.
- Sister Sephy (A3) admitted to having sexual interaction with a relative without actual penetration, according to two doctors deposed before the Court as PW19 (Dr Lalithambika Karunakaran) and PW29 (Dr P Rema). In this regard, the High Court inquired whether A3's actions were related to her relationship with A1.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
- The Court found "glaring interlopments" in the medical report regarding A3's hymen examination. It went on to say that PW 19's opinion on surgical intervention to repair the torn hymen was not definitive, and that the evidence was only suggestive of a possibility.
- The Court stated thatthe opinion is not definite, and the probable inference is a breach of the chastity vows, which again do not establish the relationship with A1 or the alleged escapade on the crucial night, or, more importantly, connect A3 with the crime of murder.
CONCLUSION
- The Court ordered that the petitioners be released on bail upon the execution of a bond for Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) each with two solvent sureties for the same amount, each to the satisfaction of the trial court. For the first six months after their release, the petitioners must report to the S.H.O concerned every Saturday at 11 a.m., and every second Saturday thereafter.
- The order also stated that they shall not leave the state without the permission of the Court. Senior Advocates P Vijaya Bhanu and B Raman Pillai, along with Advocates Thomas J Anakkallunkal, Sojan Micheal, Chacko Simon, and Maria Paul, represented Sephy and Kottoor, respectively. P Sooryakaran Reddy, Additional Solicitor General of India, represented the CBI.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
