Supreme Court has again come in as a custodian of our fundamental rights and dismissed the pleas of a rape survivor and her assaulter – to marry each other. This judgment will help in shielding many a victim from such rapists, who using the garb of social stigma, would go scot-free after indulging in such heinous crimes.  

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain an application filed by rape survivor of Kottiyoor (Kerala) rape case, when she expressed her willingness to marry her assaulter - a defrocked Catholic priest Robin Vadakkumchery, who is serving his sentence of 20 years imprisonment for raping and impregnating her while she was still a minor.

Simultaneously, the top court also rejected a petition filed by the convict seeking bail to marry the survivor. The assaulter’s request was supported by the rape survivor. She feels that the marriage will help her escape social stigma and will provide legitimacy to the child born out of the sexual crime.

The Bench of Justices Vineet Saran and Dinesh Maheshwari felt that there was no reason to disturb The Kerala High Court’s decision of refusing to suspend 45 year old Robin's sentence to marry the rape survivor “and we would not like to interfere with its finding”.

While rejecting the victim’s plea, made through Senior Advocate Kiran Suri, the bench opined that she may knock the door of the trial court for permission. The victim, now 25, stated that her child who will soon need to enroll in a school and would require a father's name to be mentioned in the admission form, and hence her request.

Advocate Amit George, appearing for the convict in the hearing, said the High Court had passed sweeping directions in the case with regard to marriage, which is a fundamental right. Justices Saran and Maheshwari felt “You yourself have invited sweeping directions from the High Court and it would not like to interfere.”          

A single bench of Justice Sunil Thomas of the Kerala High Court had refused to suspend accused’s sentence, saying that judicial approval cannot be granted to marriage when the findings of the trial court that a minor was raped are in force.

Supreme Court felt that the observations were made by the High Court after examining all aspects of the case and hence did not wish to disturb the order. The Court felt that grievances can be raised before the High Court, where Robin's criminal appeal filed against the sentence imposed by Special POCSO Court Thalassery in 2019 is pending.

The assaulter, Robin Vadakkumchery was the vicar of St. Sebastian's Church, Kottiyoor, Wayanad, Kerala when the crime occurred. The victim gave birth to a girl child in February 2017. Robin was arrested by police in February 2017 while on his way to airport in an attempt to flee to Canada.

Last year, Robin had moved an application before the Kerala High Court seeking bail to marry the survivor, who has now attained marriageable age. He claimed in the application that he had consensual sex with the survivor, who was then a minor aged around 16 years. In the petition, he added that the only impediment to their marriage was his priesthood, but since after his conviction he was defrocked from his priesthood and he is now a layman, he is now eligible for entering wedlock.

While dismissing it, the High Court cited several Supreme Court precedents where rape cases cannot be settled by approving marriage. Challenging this order, Robin had filed a special leave petition in the SC, in which the survivor has also filed the present application.

Much earlier, during the trial, an attempt was made by Robin's defence alleging that the girl was impregnated by her own biological father. Thankfully however, the DNA of the child clearly attributed paternity to Robin, which later acted as a clinching piece of evidence, resulting in his conviction.

Besides Vadakkumchery, police had then booked two doctors and a hospital administrator under the provisions of POCSO Act for allegedly covering up the crime, not reporting it to the police after they had come in contact with the minor rape victim and destroying of evidences. The victim had given birth to the child at their hospital and was under their care.