J&K High Court upholds 10-year jail for godman Brahmanand Saraswati for raping minor

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has upheld the conviction and ten-year rigorous imprisonment sentence of 84-year-old self-styled godman Brahmanand Saraswati, who was found guilty of repeatedly raping a minor dwarf girl in Reasi district. The court dismissed his appeal, relying heavily on DNA evidence that conclusively established him as the biological father of the stillborn child delivered by the victim.

The breach of trust by a 'guru'

The victim, then about 16 years old, lived with her family in Panasa village. The family, along with many locals, had adopted Brahmanand Saraswati as their spiritual guru. The girl regularly visited his room, located adjacent to her home, to serve him milk and food. The prosecution alleged that on one occasion, the godman laced tea she consumed with an intoxicant, rendering her unconscious, and raped her. He then threatened to eliminate her entire family if she ever disclosed the incident. This sexual abuse continued repeatedly over several days, eventually leading to her pregnancy.

The matter came to light in October 2018 when the girl complained of abdominal pain and confided in her mother. She was taken to the police and subsequently to Reasi Hospital, where she was found to be pregnant. She was later referred to SMGS Hospital Jammu, where she delivered a stillborn female child. The godman was arrested from Uttar Pradesh in November 2018 after being on the run for about a month. A trial court convicted him in March 2024 under Section 376 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC), sentencing him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000.

Challenging the conviction: Arguments on delay and evidence

Saraswati's counsel, Ms. Vasudha Sharma, challenged the trial court's verdict on several grounds. The primary contention was an unexplained delay of nearly eight months in lodging the First Information Report (FIR). It was argued that the family knew about the alleged incident soon after it occurred but waited until the victim became visibly pregnant to report it. The defense also pointed to alleged contradictions in the prosecutrix's statement, particularly her claim of being unconscious during the first assault, which was not recorded in the initial complaint. Questions were raised about the collection and handling of DNA samples, noting that the sample-taking witnesses were not examined. Furthermore, the defense highlighted the existence of another suspect, a boy named Vipan, arguing that this created reasonable doubt.

In response, the State, represented by Mr. Sumeet Bhatia, argued that the delay was understandable given the circumstances: the victim was a minor, physically disabled (a dwarf), and the accused was a revered godman wielding considerable influence in the locality and had threatened her. The prosecution maintained that the victim's testimony was credible and was strongly corroborated by the DNA report, which left no doubt about the convict's paternity. The State asserted that the trial court had correctly relied on the evidence.

Court's reasoning: Delay condoned, DNA evidence clinching

Justice MA Chowdhary, hearing the appeal, systematically addressed each challenge. On the delay in filing the FIR, the court observed that the victim's age, physical condition, and the accused's influence made the delay perfectly understandable and not fatal to the prosecution's case. The court stated: "The delay in lodging the FIR can be understandable and does not seem to be fatal for the prosecution case."

Regarding the DNA evidence, the court found the defense's objections without merit. The Forensic Science Laboratory report, proved by expert Dr. Kamal Chauhan, confirmed that the genetic profile of the stillborn baby matched that of the accused. The court held: "The forensic evidence on record conclusively established the self-styled godman was the biological father of the child delivered by the prosecutrix ." It rejected the argument that the failure to examine sample-taking witnesses was fatal, noting that the defense had not demonstrated any prejudice from this omission.

The court also rejected the argument that the prosecutrix's testimony was not of "sterling quality." Justice Chowdhary noted that while such high standards may be applied in cases lacking corroboration, here the victim's account was amply supported by medical and DNA evidence. The court further commented that there was nothing to suggest her testimony lacked evidentiary quality. It added: "The statement of the prosecutrix even if not of sterling quality has to be relied upon" when corroborated by other independent evidence.

Final verdict and implications

Dismissing the appeal, the High Court upheld the trial court's conviction under Section 376 RPC. While noting that the sentence of ten years was the minimum prescribed and that a more stringent punishment could have been warranted given the heinous nature of the crime and the victim's vulnerability, the court declined to enhance the sentence in the absence of a challenge from the State. Justice Chowdhary remarked that the convict's advanced age made the crime "more diabolical and odious" as it involved a breach of trust by an elderly person who was revered as a guru.

The judgment serves as a powerful reaffirmation that in sexual offence cases involving minors, especially when corroborated by scientific evidence, delays in reporting can be explained by the accused's influence and threats. The court's reliance on DNA evidence as the linchpin of the case underscores the growing importance of forensic science in securing convictions in such serious crimes.