SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the conviction and 10-year rigorous imprisonment of an 84-year-old godman for repeatedly raping a minor girl who subsequently became pregnant and delivered a stillborn baby, holding that the prosecution case was supported by “sufficient and credible evidence” including the victim’s testimony, medical evidence and DNA profiling. Justice M A Chowdhary dismissed Brahmanand Saraswati’s appeal against the judgment of the Principal Sessions Judge, Reasi, saying the conviction was based on evidence that established his guilt under Section 376 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC).
The judgment was reserved on July 30 and pronounced on August 12 in Crl A(S) No. 26/2025. Saraswati, a resident of Mathura in Uttar Pradesh and presently lodged in District Jail, Jammu, had challenged the trial court’s judgment of March 29, 2024, and order of sentence dated April 2, 2024, under which he was sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5,000. In default of payment of the fine, he was ordered to undergo a further month’s simple imprisonment.
Saraswati was represented by advocate Vasudha Sharma, while Government Advocate Sumeet Bhatia appeared for the State, now the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.
The case arose from FIR No. 177/2018 registered at Police Station Reasi under Section 376 RPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution case was that Saraswati, who lived in a room in the house of one Romel Singh adjoining the house of the girl’s family, had been accepted by the family and other residents of the locality as their guru.
The girl used to take milk and food to him, according to the prosecution. One day, when she found herself alone with him, he allegedly offered her tea after which she became unconscious and he raped her. The prosecution alleged that he subsequently subjected her to repeated sexual intercourse and threatened to eliminate her entire family if she disclosed the assaults.
The girl eventually became pregnant. When she developed abdominal pain, she disclosed the matter to her parents. She was taken to hospital and subsequently shifted to SMGS Hospital, Jammu, where she delivered a dead female baby during the intervening night of October 6 and 7, 2018.
The police investigation included medical examination of the girl, preparation of the site plan, recording of statements and collection of evidence relating to the stillborn child. A DNA examination was also conducted.
According to the judgment, the forensic expert from CFSC, New Delhi, Dr Kamal Chauhan, testified that the DNA profile of Saraswati was “consistent as biological father” of the stillborn baby. The expert told the court that he had personally conducted the analysis and issued the relevant report under his seal and signature.
The trial court subsequently convicted Saraswati under Section 376 RPC and sentenced him to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5,000. Although the charge-sheet had also invoked Section 4 of the POCSO Act, the trial court held that the POCSO Act was not applicable in Jammu and Kashmir on the date of the occurrence.
The High Court, in its judgment, pointed out that the trial court appeared to have overlooked the fact that, before the POCSO Act was extended to Jammu and Kashmir, an ordinance containing “almost similar provisions” had been promulgated by the then government and was applicable in the territory at the time of the occurrence. Since the State had not challenged the trial court judgment, however, Justice Chowdhary said he was not required to examine that issue further.
The appeal challenged the conviction on several grounds. Saraswati’s counsel argued that there was no reliable evidence linking him to the offence, that the statements of material prosecution witnesses contained contradictions and improvements, and that there had been a delay of nearly eight months in lodging the FIR.
The defence also questioned the prosecution’s version regarding the girl’s alleged unconsciousness, pointed to another person named Vipan who lived nearby, and argued that delays in recording witness statements had remained unexplained. It was further contended that the circumstantial evidence was legally insufficient and that the DNA evidence had not been properly established.
The defence also argued that the DNA report of Saraswati was not on the file, that documents concerning the taking of blood samples were absent and that the witnesses associated with the sampling process had neither been arrayed nor examined. The appellant’s counsel further questioned the proof of the girl’s age and argued that her testimony was not of the quality required to sustain a conviction.
The prosecution opposed the appeal, maintaining that Saraswati had sexually assaulted a minor girl and impregnated her. It relied particularly on the girl’s testimony and the DNA evidence. The prosecution argued that there was no reason for the girl to falsely implicate an elderly man who had been revered as a guru in the locality and that her testimony was corroborated by medical and scientific evidence.
Justice Chowdhary rejected the argument that the eight-month delay in registration of the FIR was fatal to the prosecution. The court noted that the girl was below 17, was of short stature, and that Saraswati was a godman with considerable influence in the locality who had allegedly threatened her.
“In this case when the prosecutrix was a minor child of less than 17 years” and had been threatened by the accused, the court said, “the delay in lodging the FIR can be understandable and does not seem to be fatal for the prosecution case”.
The court also rejected the contention that the DNA report had not been placed on record, noting that the report was “very much on file” and had been proved by the forensic expert. The DNA of the stillborn child and Saraswati had matched, with the expert confirming that the appellant was the biological father.
Justice Chowdhary further held that the criticism of the victim’s testimony was misplaced. While a conviction may in some circumstances rest upon the sole testimony of a prosecutrix, the present case contained additional medical, DNA and other evidence.
“The statement of the prosecutrix even if not of sterling quality has to be relied upon,” the court said, adding that it found “nothing to suggest that the statement of the prosecutrix was lacking in its evidentiary quality”.
The court took note of the circumstances in which the girl had come into contact with Saraswati. She used to visit him to provide milk and food, while he lived in a house adjoining that of her family. Her testimony was that he first made her unconscious after offering her tea and thereafter threatened her against disclosing the incident.
The court also considered the testimony of her mother, brother and father, besides the evidence of police and medical witnesses. The prosecution evidence established that the girl had become pregnant and subsequently delivered a stillborn female child.
Justice Chowdhary described the case as one in which a “godman/guru/swami, revered by the inhabitants of the village” had sexually assaulted “a girl of a tender age suffering from the deformity of being a dwarf”.
“There being sufficient and credible evidence in the form of ocular as well as documentary and expert evidence,” the court held, “it can safely be held on the basis of prosecution evidence that the appellant/convict had committed the offence punishable under Section 376 RPC upon the prosecutrix.”
The High Court, however, differed from the trial court on the precise statutory provision applicable to the sentence. The trial court had sentenced Saraswati under clause (i) of sub-section (2) of Section 376 RPC. Justice Chowdhary held that, since the victim was above 16, that clause was not attracted.
Instead, the court held that the repeated acts of sexual intercourse attracted clause (n) of sub-section (2) of Section 376 RPC, under which the punishment is rigorous imprisonment of not less than 10 years, extendable to imprisonment for life, along with fine.
The High Court nevertheless did not enhance the sentence. It noted that the State had not filed an appeal challenging the adequacy of the punishment and, in the absence of such a challenge, the court could not itself enter into the question of enhancement.
The court recorded that the trial court had declined to take a lenient view on account of Saraswati’s advanced age, observing that he should have considered his age before committing the offence. Justice Chowdhary agreed that the offence was particularly grave given that it had allegedly been committed by an elderly person against a minor and helpless girl and had resulted in her pregnancy.
The High Court said it believed that the convict “should have been sternly dealt with” on the question of sentence, but maintained the punishment imposed by the trial court because of the absence of an appeal by the State.
The appeal and accompanying applications were accordingly dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld. The trial court record was directed to be returned along with a copy of the High Court judgment.
