It also noted that the delay in filing the FIR was satisfactorily explained by the victims’ trauma and societal pressure. The Court emphasized that the accused’s influence as a religious leader created an environment of fear and intimidation, making it difficult for victims to come forward.
Kashmir: A Chief Judicial Magistrate Court in Sopore, Kashmir, convicted Aijaz Ahmad Sheikh, a self-proclaimed faith healer known as “Pir Baba,” under Section 377 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) for sexually abusing a minor in the case.
Chief Judicial Magistrate Baramulla, Mir Wajahat, delivered the verdict against the accused.
“The Court, after a thorough examination of the evidence, concludes that the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt,” the judgment stated.
The judgment stated that the accused misused his position and took advantage of his victims’ vulnerability to exert control and abuse them.
“He coerced PW3 and PW8 into unnatural sexual acts during their minority, exploiting their vulnerability under the pretense of granting blessings. By overpowering their will, manipulating their minds, and maintaining control, he subjected them to years of relentless brutality, disguising his crimes with ostentation while burdening them with the unbearable shame of his misconduct,”
the Court observed.
The case came to light in 2016 when a minor victim disclosed years of sexual abuse to his father, prompting the filing of a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 377 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC).
The investigation revealed a disturbing pattern of abuse spanning from 2012 to 2016, during which the accused, Sheikh, systematically targeted minor boys under the guise of providing spiritual guidance. He subjected them to unnatural sexual acts while instilling fear of supernatural consequences if they resisted.
As the case progressed, multiple victims came forward, sharing harrowing accounts of their suffering. Their testimonies revealed a consistent pattern of psychological manipulation, coercion, and prolonged abuse. The accused used religious and supernatural threats to coerce the victims, convincing them that resistance would result in divine punishment or harm from supernatural forces.
This psychological manipulation ensured compliance and prevented the victims from disclosing the abuse for an extended period.
During the trial, the prosecution argued that the victims’ testimonies were credible, consistent, and supported by independent witnesses. They also justified the delay in filing the FIR, citing the victims’ trauma and the stigma associated with such cases. Additionally, the prosecution contended that the accused had exploited his religious influence to manipulate and subjugate his victims.
The defense, however, claimed that the allegations were fabricated and motivated by financial enmity. They highlighted the delay in filing the FIR as a factor undermining the credibility of the accusations. The defense also argued that there was no medical evidence proving sexual abuse, as the victim’s medical examination did not reveal any signs of physical injury or assault. Furthermore, they pointed out the absence of DNA or forensic evidence linking the accused to the crime.
The Court rejected the defense’s arguments, ruling that the claim of financial enmity was unsubstantiated and that medical evidence was not mandatory in cases where victim testimonies were reliable.
“The victims’ testimonies remain unshaken and credible, forming a strong basis for conviction,” the Court stated.
It also noted that the delay in filing the FIR was satisfactorily explained by the victims’ trauma and societal pressure. The Court emphasized that the accused’s influence as a religious leader created an environment of fear and intimidation, making it difficult for victims to come forward.
The Court found that the multiple victims’ independent and consistent accounts indicated a systematic pattern of abuse.
The testimonies were described as “consistent, cogent, and unshaken” even under cross-examination, leading to the conviction of the accused under Section 377 of the RPC. The sentencing would be determined after hearing all parties involved.
Additionally, the Court ordered the registration of separate FIRs for five other victims who had testified as witnesses in the case.
“The Superintendent of Police, Sopore, is directed to immediately facilitate the registration of separate FIRs concerning PW4, PW5, PW9, PW11, and PW12, ensuring that each victim’s claims are adjudicated separately. The District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) is requested to provide immediate legal aid to these victims to safeguard their access to justice and file a compliance report within ninety days, detailing the steps taken for separate FIR registration and investigation,”
the Court ordered.
[Case Title: UT of J&K V/s Aijaz Ahmad Sheikh]
