In the Bishop Franco case, where Bishop Mulakkal was accused of raping a nun 13 times, a profound aspect of law that would favour the victim, and that the Additional Sessions Judge himself was convinced would apply in the case, was
inexplicably ignored.


In the Bishop Franco case, considerable value was given to a fake claim,
but this time to undermine the victim's character. The victim's first cousin, Jaya, had filed a complaint alleging that the victim was having an affair with her husband. But later she conceded that she was lying, that she did it out of
vendetta. It was on the basis of this false charge that Mulakkal had dictated
action against the victim.


Jaya retracted her complaint in front of the judge, too. “It is true that PW16
(Jaya) had stuck to her stand that the allegations were false and concocted,
aimed at taking revenge against PW1 (the victim),” the judge said in his order.



“It is doubtful whether a lady of the stature of PW16 (Jaya) who is a teacher by
profession would malign the reputation of her own husband, who is a lawyer
practising at the Supreme Court of India, for a silly verbal brawl with PW1
(victim) and her family members,” the judge said.


Bishop Franco, is not subjected to such intense scrutiny. Another nun
had also complained about Franco's behaviour. She had said that the Bishop had
put his hands on her shoulder and pulled her close to him. Given the court's
tendency to consider alleged transgressions in unrelated incidents as proof of
general bad behaviour (for instance, the victim's supposed fling with the
husband of her first cousin), the second nun's charge should have counted as
evidence of Franco's serial abuseIn the Franco trial, even after Jaya said she had twisted facts, the judge just could not shake off the belief that the victim had an “accessory nipple”. Even the examining doctor's testimony was not enough to disabuse the judge of the notion.

The doctor, a Professor in Obstetrics Gynecologist at the Kottayam Medical
College Hospital, had said she did not find any accessory nipple on the victim.
So she was asked whether the extra nipples can be removed easily by a surgical
procedure without leaving any marks.

The doctor said she had "not heard about super accessory nipple surgery or third
nipple surgery being done by plastic surgeons for removing the third nipple
without leaving any mark".

The judge was not satisfied. “The evidence of PW21 (doctor) is inconclusive as
to whether PW1 had undergone any surgical procedure for removing her
accessory nipple."