Bombay High Court upholds conviction of Godman who raped devotee

The Bombay High Court recently upheld the conviction of a man claiming to be devotee of Macchindranath, for having sexually abused a female devotee under the garb of "blessing her with a child" [Yogesh Pandurang Kupekar v. State of Maharashtra].Single-judge Justice CV Bhadang noted in his judgment that such incidents happen due to the blind faith of devotees on people like the accused; and the evidence in such cases also has to be appreciated in the context of the peculiar factual matrix. "It is significant to note that the blind faith of the parties/victim on the accused is the real driver in such cases. The evidence in such cases has to be appreciated in the context of these peculiar circumstances" the judgment said.The female devotee and her husband had allegedly been suggested to approach the accused to resolve their problems of having a child post their marriage.While the initial visits of the couple in 2013 would involve the accused giving them' vibhuti' and chanting of mantras, in 2015, the accused advised the couple to have a ‘reiki procedure’. Essentially, the couple was required to have physical relations in the presence of the convict. Although the woman had her reservations, due to her husband's faith and devotion, they completed the procedure as was required of them. This supposedly happened five times. On one such occasion, in the year 2016, the convict asked the husband to leave the room as he wanted to conduct a certain procedure on the woman. When the husband left the room, the wife was allegedly sexually abused by the accused. Post this incident, the woman filed a complaint against the accused. The accused came to be charged under Section 376 (rape) and 354 (sexual assault) of the Indian Penal Code and provisions of the Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication Human Sacrifice and Other Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act.The trial concluded and the accused was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and with a fine..The accused argued that the offences against him were false. It was highly improbable that accused could suggest or insist for any such procedure referred to as reiki. He argued that the couple was staying with family members and in any case, having physical relations in the close proximity of a husband was improbable. The accused submitted that the woman had an issue from her first marriage, so it was unlikely that the couple would visit the accused for a child. .The prosecution on the other hand supported the trial court judgment. It was argued that the evidence of the couple was consistent and inspired confidence. There was circumstantial evidence that indicated that the accused-appellant professed that he was a devotee of Macchindranath and there were devotees who were assembling at the house of the appellant every Thursday.Their case was that the "incident of present nature is a result of blind faith kept by so called devotees who out of their personal or family problems, seek such advice from the persons claiming to have super natural powers". It was submitted that the complainant and her husband had no reason to falsely implicate the accused. .The Court was not convinced with the arguments of the accused on the aspect of improbability.The Court noted that the husband had deep faith on the accused and it was only due to such faith that the couple underwent physical relations in front of the accused, "which could otherwise be quite embarrassing".The woman was aware of the faith of her husband on the accused and therefore, it might have been plausible that she might not have found anything unusual and might not have objected when the husband was asked to go out on the date of the incident, the Court noted. The Judge, however, noted that the incident had occurred before the amendment to Section 376 of the IPC in 2018 when the prescribed sentence was of 7 years. Hence the sentence of 10 years was modified to 7 years while the conviction was maintained. .Advocates Kuldeep Patil with Saili Dhuru, briefed by Prashant Patil, appeared for the accused. Additional Public Prosecutor RM Pethe appeared for the State. [Read Judgment]