Mental infirmity is not a bar to witness competency if the witness passes a voir dire examination.

The prosecution alleged that the appellant (Accused No. 2) and a co-accused (now deceased) committed rape on a partially handicapped and mentally challenged girl (the victim, PW2) over a period of three months prior to 20.08.2011

The victim eventually disclosed the abuse to school authorities during counseling

The trial court, after conducting a voir dire examination of PW2, found her competent to testify and convicted the appellant under Section 376 of the IPC, sentencing him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment

The appellant challenged the conviction, primarily arguing that the Investigating Officer (IO) failed to note the victim's mental disability during the investigation and that no formal medical fitness certificate regarding her mental state was obtained

1. Whether the failure of the Investigating Officer to formally record the victim's status as a mentally disabled person is fatal to the prosecution case

2. What are the essential requirements under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act (and Section 124 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) to determine the competency of a witness

3. Whether the evidence of a partially mentally challenged witness is reliable if they pass a voir dire test and provide rational answers

The Court applied Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act (corresponding to Section 124 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), which stipulates that all persons are competent to testify unless the court considers them prevented from understanding questions or giving rational answers due to tender years, extreme old age, or disease of mind or body

The Court relied on Ramesh P. v. State rep. by Inspector of Police (2019) 20 SCC 593, establishing that competency is determined by the intellectual capacity to understand questions and provide coherent answers, rather than age or medical status alone

It also referenced Chakochan v. State of Kerala (2025 KER 15443) regarding the competency of intellectually disabled witnesses in sexual assault cases

The Court dismissed the appellant’s contention regarding the IO's failure to note the victim's disability, reasoning that if the victim provided rational answers during the police statement (as the IO testified), her underlying mental status did not vitiate the investigation

The Court emphasized that the trial judge conducted a voir dire examination and was satisfied with PW2’s capacity to testify

Upon reviewing the transcript, the High Court found that PW2 gave consistent, rational, and descriptive evidence regarding the assault, specifically identifying the appellant and describing the acts of penetration using her own terminology ("kunjamani")

This oral testimony was corroborated by the medical evidence of PW7, which confirmed a torn hymen and vaginal penetration

and the school records (PW5) confirming her minority at the time of the incident

The Court affirmed that the IO's omission was not fatal to the case

Consequently, the conviction under Section 376 IPC and the sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed