Supreme Court Grants Bail, Suspends Life Term of Catholic Priest Convicted for Raping Minor Girl

The Bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran was hearing an application filed by Fr. Pigarez seeking suspension of sentence and bail during the pendency of his appeal.

Senior Advocate R. Basant appeared for the appellant, while Senior Advocate P.V. Surendranath represented the State.

Surendranath strongly opposed the plea, stressing that the convict had been found guilty of committing a heinous offence by both the trial court and the High Court.

The Court recorded that although the High Court had modified the punishment from imprisonment for the remainder of the priest’s natural life to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment without remission, the appellant had already completed almost half the term.

“Even if this Court accepts the sentence of 20 years imposed by the High Court, the applicant/appellant has still undergone half of the sentence,” the Bench observed. It further noted that Section 376(2)(i) and (n) of the Indian Penal Code prescribes a minimum sentence of 10 years, extending up to life imprisonment.

Taking into account the period of incarceration already suffered, the Supreme Court ordered suspension of the sentence pending disposal of the appeal. Fr. Pigarez was directed to be released on bail in connection with Sessions Case No. 203 of 2016, on conditions to be fixed by the trial court. "In that view of the matter, we are inclined to suspend the sentence of the applicant/appellant, during the pendency of the appeal(s). The appellant is directed to be released on bail in connection with Sessions Case No.`203 of 2016, on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Trial Court. The application is, accordingly, disposed of," the Court said in its order dated September 17. 

Notably, in March 2024, the Kerala High Court had upheld the conviction of Fr. Pigarez, for raping a minor parishioner but modified the sentence imposed on him by the trial court. The Bench of Justices P.B. Suresh Kumar and Johnson John had reduced his punishment from imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment without remission.

At the same time, the High Court had set aside the conviction of his brother, Silvester Pigarez, who had been sentenced by the trial court to one year in jail for allegedly harbouring the priest. Holding that there was no evidence to show that Silvester had protected or shielded the accused from law, the bench acquitted him.

The prosecution alleged that Fr. Pigarez repeatedly sexually assaulted a girl studying in Class VIII between 2014 and 2015 at the church presbytery in Ernakulam, where he was serving as vicar. The survivor was a parishioner of the church, and the complaint was filed by her mother.

Following investigation, the Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam (Special Court for cases of sexual violence against women and children), convicted Fr. Pigarez under provisions of the IPC and the POCSO Act. He was sentenced to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life. His brother Silvester was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment for harbouring the accused.

The division bench, while upholding the conviction of Fr. Pigarez, had modified the sentence applying the principle of proportionality. The Court had observed that rape is a grave offence that leaves a permanent scar on the life of the survivor. “A victim of rape suffers from trauma and has to live with it for the rest of her life. It is an infringement of a person’s right to live a dignified life,” the Bench had remarked.

However, the Bench had stressed that sentencing must always align with the gravity of the offence and remain proportionate. “The imposed sentence should always be justified based on its appropriateness and proportionality,” the Court had said, holding that life imprisonment till natural death was excessive in this case. The sentence was accordingly reduced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment without remission.

With respect to Silvester Pigarez, the Bench held that the prosecution failed to prove the allegation of harbouring. The conviction and sentence imposed on him were therefore set aside.