Failure Of Differently-Abled Rape Victim To Name Accused Not Fatal If Evidence Inspires Confidence And Is Corroborated: Sikkim High Court

The Court was hearing a criminal appeal challenging a conviction under Section 376(2)(l) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, involving sexual assault on a woman with intellectual disability and cerebral palsy.

A Division Bench of Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai and Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan observed: “When the Court is to examine an alleged crime committed on a differently abled victim, it has to scrutinise every piece of evidence meticulously, as the victim may not be able to describe the incident coherently in the manner we understand. This, however, does not mean that the deposition should not inspire judicial confidence”.

“The inability of a differently abled victim in not being able to name the appellant as the aggressor, cannot be a ground to discard the prosecution version as the ocular evidence is corroborated by the medical and forensic evidence which confirms rape upon the victim”, the Bench added.

Advocate Gita Bista appeared for the appellant; Yadev Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor, appeared for the State.

Background

The case arose from an incident where the victim, a 25-year-old woman with multiple disabilities assessed at 70%, was sexually assaulted. The prosecution case was initiated based on an FIR lodged by the victim’s relative after an eyewitness account by the victim’s niece.

The trial court convicted the accused under Section 376(2)(l) IPC, relying on the testimony of the victim, the eyewitness account, and corroborative medical and forensic evidence.

The accused challenged the conviction, contending that the victim had failed to name or identify him as the perpetrator and that inconsistencies in testimony rendered the prosecution's case unreliable.

Court’s Observation

At the outset, the Court undertook a detailed examination of how the testimony of differently-abled victims must be appreciated. It referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Patan Jamal Vali v. State of A.P. (2021), which held that the testimony of a disabled witness cannot be treated as inferior merely because such a person communicates differently.

The Court observed that the victim, despite her limitations, had consistently indicated sexual abuse by pointing to her body and identifying that the incident had been witnessed by her niece. It held that such communication, though not conventional, was meaningful and required careful interpretation.

The Court noted that the victim’s silence in naming the accused could not be treated as fatal, particularly when she was deposing in his presence and given her cognitive and communicative limitations, stating that the “failure to name the appellant as the aggressor should not be given undue weightage lest truth gets suppressed in her silence”.

It further observed that the deposition, when read as a whole, clearly conveyed that the victim had been subjected to sexual assault, and that her inability to articulate the details in conventional form could not diminish the evidentiary value of her testimony.

The Court found that the ocular evidence was fully corroborated by medical and forensic evidence. The medical examination revealed injuries consistent with sexual assault, including a torn hymen, bleeding, and tenderness, while the forensic report confirmed the presence of human blood in vaginal samples.

The Court emphasised that such corroboration lent strong credibility to the prosecution's case and removed any doubt arising from the victim’s inability to narrate events in a structured manner.

It also examined the evidence of the eyewitness, who had seen the accused follow the victim and later raised an alarm, as well as the testimony of other witnesses establishing the presence of the accused at the scene.

The Court noted that the identity of the accused was clearly established through multiple witnesses, all of whom knew him as a person working in the victim’s house, and that there was no material to suggest the involvement of any third person.

“Our inability to understand the victim’s language should not lead to a failure of justice. What is important is to know what she has to say more than how she says it”, the Bench stressed.

In this context, the Court held that the evidence on record, taken cumulatively, established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

Conclusion

The Court held that the prosecution had successfully proved the charge of rape under Section 376(2)(l) IPC and that the conviction recorded by the trial court did not warrant interference.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of ten years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine were upheld. The Court also affirmed the direction for the grant of compensation to the victim under the applicable victim compensation scheme.

Cause Title: Rinzing Sherpa v. State of Sikkim

Click here to read/download Judgment