Testimony of a Mentally Disabled Rape Victim Deserves Full Legal Weight if Corroborated by Medical Evidence

The victim (PW-4), a woman with 70% mental retardation and cerebral palsy, was allegedly raped by the appellant, a mason/carpenter working at her home, on September 2, 2022.

The victim’s niece (PW-5) witnessed the appellant leading the victim towards a school playground and later discovered them.

Medical examination revealed fresh cuts over the inner labia, a torn hymen, and bleeding.

Forensic reports (RFSL) detected human blood on the victim’s vaginal swabs.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 376(2)(l) of the IPC.

The appellant appealed, contending that the victim failed to name him in court and that material contradictions existed in eyewitness testimony.

1. Whether the testimony of a victim with intellectual disabilities can be discarded solely due to her inability to name the accused or communicate in a conventional manner.

2. Whether the circumstantial, medical, and forensic evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 376(2)(l) IPC despite the victim's silences during deposition.

Section 376(2)(l) of the IPC, which pertains to rape committed on a woman incapable of giving consent due to mental disability.

The principle from Patan Jamal Vali v. State of A.P., establishing that the testimony of a disabled witness is not inferior and must be given full legal weight if it inspires judicial confidence.

Section 293 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the admissibility of expert reports (RFSL) without the examination of the expert.

Mange v. State of Haryana, which held that medical evidence of a torn hymen and bruises can corroborate the testimony of a disabled prosecutrix to sustain a conviction.

The Court reasoned that the victim’s inability to explicitly name the appellant or her silence during specific questions must be understood in the context of her 70% intellectual disability.

By using the "Special Educator" (PW-3) and observing the victim’s gestures—pointing to her private parts and identifying her niece (PW-5) as the witness—the Court found her testimony regarding sexual abuse credible.

The Court bridged the gaps in her testimony by relying on PW-5, who placed the appellant at the scene, and PW-7, who apprehended the appellant at the playground.

The medical evidence of "fresh cuts" and "torn hymen" (PW-10) and the RFSL report confirming human blood on vaginal swabs provided objective corroboration of rape.

The Court dismissed the appellant's defense regarding "defense marks" on his arm, noting they were caused by the victim's family upon finding him at the scene, which further confirmed his presence.

The Court held that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant raped a woman with a mental disability.

The Court confirmed the sentence of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment, a fine of ₹25,000, and the recommendation of ₹4,00,000 as victim compensation under the Sikkim Victim Compensation Scheme.