Conviction upheld after DNA evidence linked temple priest to deaf, non-verbal woman’s child in rape case

The appellant, a temple priest, was prosecuted in Billiground P.S. Case No. 24 of 2021 for offences under Sections 376, 342, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution alleged that, during January and February 2021, the appellant repeatedly took the 21-year-old deaf and non-verbal victim into a temple, sexually assaulted her and threatened her with consequences if she disclosed the incidents.

The allegation surfaced when the victim, suffering from abdominal pain, was medically examined and found to be approximately 28 weeks pregnant.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 376(2)(l) IPC and sentenced him to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment, with a fine of ₹1,00,000, 90% of which was directed to be paid to the victim as compensation under Section 357 CrPC; a further one year’s rigorous imprisonment was prescribed in default of payment.

Whether the testimony of the deaf and non-verbal victim, recorded and interpreted through the two Special Educators, was competent, reliable and sufficient to sustain the conviction.

Whether the DNA report conclusively establishing the appellant as the biological father of the child sufficiently corroborated the prosecution case and connected the appellant with the alleged sexual assault.

Whether the alleged irregularities in the recording of the victim’s statements, the Test Identification Parade, medical examination and investigation created a reasonable doubt warranting acquittal.

Whether the prosecution proved the charge under Section 376(2)(l) IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court applied Section 376(2)(l) IPC concerning aggravated rape, together with the general principle that the prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

It relied on Section 119 of the Indian Evidence Act, which permits a witness unable to speak to give evidence through writing or intelligible signs and gestures; deafness or inability to speak does not, by itself, render a witness incompetent.

Referring to M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, AIR 1954 SC 300, the Court held that a person may testify through intelligible gestures and that communication disability cannot automatically be equated with intellectual incapacity.

The Court also relied on the evidentiary value of DNA profiling, citing Santosh Kumar Singh v. State through CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 747, for the principle that reliable scientific evidence identifying the biological involvement of an accused may provide strong corroboration and complete the evidentiary chain.

It further applied the principle that defects or omissions in investigation do not necessarily justify acquittal where substantive evidence independently proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court found the victim’s testimony coherent and consistent: she identified the appellant as the priest who took her into the temple and subjected her to sexual intercourse, and her delayed disclosure was considered reasonably explained by the appellant’s threats and her communication disability.

The absence of formal qualifications in sign-language interpretation did not invalidate the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 because they were government-appointed Special Educators/Block Resource Persons with practical experience in communicating with persons having hearing and speech disabilities, and no evidence of bias or mistranslation was established.

The Court treated the victim’s pregnancy and the DNA report as substantial corroboration, holding that the report conclusively established the appellant’s biological paternity and constituted an objective scientific link between him and the sexual intercourse resulting in pregnancy.

The evidence of the victim’s mother was accepted as natural corroboration regarding the disclosure and discovery of the pregnancy, while the hearsay evidence of other witnesses was considered only for the limited purpose of demonstrating subsequent disclosure and consistency, not to prove the assault itself.

The Court acknowledged the absence of videography, lack of formal IQ assessment, deficiencies in the Test Identification Parade, delay in forensic steps and non-production of the child’s death certificate, but held that these were investigative or procedural lapses which did not displace the victim’s credible evidence, the medical evidence of pregnancy or the conclusive DNA findings.

The alleged conspiracy by Panchayat members was rejected as unsupported by substantive evidence.

The procedural irregularities and investigative lapses were held insufficient to create reasonable doubt or undermine the prosecution case.

The appeal was dismissed, the conviction under Section 376(2)(l) IPC was affirmed, and the sentence of ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and ₹1,00,000 fine—with 90% payable to the victim as compensation and one year’s additional rigorous imprisonment in default—was maintained.