The Chhattisgarh High Court has affirmed that the testimony of a deaf and dumb victim, when recorded with proper safeguards and found credible, can alone sustain a conviction for rape under Section 376(2)(j)(l) IPC, provided it inspires full confidence and is corroborated by circumstantial and scientific evidence. This judgment reinforces the legal principle that physical disability does not equate to testimonial unreliability.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Neelam Kumar Deshmukh, was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Balod, for the rape of a deaf and dumb minor girl, who had been left alone at home on 29.07.2020 while her parents worked as agricultural labourers. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, who was the victim’s close relative residing in the same village, entered her house without permission, forcibly removed her clothes, and committed sexual intercourse. The victim, unable to speak or hear since birth, communicated the incident through gestures and signs to her mother upon her return home.
Key Facts
- The victim, aged approximately 12 years, was born deaf and dumb and could only communicate minimally through gestures and body language.
- The incident occurred on 29.07.2020 at approximately 09:00 AM, while the victim’s parents were working in the fields.
- The victim’s mother, PW-01, returned home in the evening and found the victim crying and distressed. Through gestures, the victim identified the appellant as the perpetrator.
- A written complaint was lodged at Police Station Arjunda on 29.07.2020, leading to registration of Crime No. 130/2020 under Sections 450 and 376(2)(j)(l) IPC.
- The victim’s statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate on 05.08.2020, with the assistance of a trained sign language interpreter, Padma Sahu (PW-08).
- A medical examination of the victim was conducted on 30.07.2020 by Dr. S.P. Khan (PW-06) at the Community Health Centre, Arjunda.
- Vaginal swabs and the victim’s underwear were seized and sent for forensic analysis.
- The appellant was arrested on 01.08.2020.
- The charge-sheet was filed on 15.09.2020.
- Charges were framed on 10.11.2020 under Sections 450 and 376(2)(j)(l) IPC.
- The appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 18.01.2023, where he denied all allegations.
- The trial court delivered its judgment on 28.03.2023, convicting the appellant and sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000 under Section 376(2)(j)(l) IPC, and five years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000 under Section 450 IPC, both sentences to run concurrently.
- The appellant filed the present appeal on 22.07.2023.
Procedural History
- 29.07.2020: Incident occurred; complaint lodged same day.
- 01.08.2020: Accused arrested.
- 05.08.2020: Victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
- 15.09.2020: Charge-sheet filed.
- 10.11.2020: Charges framed.
- 18.01.2023: Accused examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
- 28.03.2023: Trial Court conviction and sentencing.
- 22.07.2023: Criminal Appeal filed before Chhattisgarh High Court.
- 16.03.2026: Judgment delivered by Division Bench.
The Parties' Positions
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel contended that the victim’s testimony was unreliable due to her physical disability, lacked corroboration, and was inconsistent. He argued that the absence of injuries on the victim’s body and the delay in medical examination undermined the prosecution’s case. He further submitted that the appellant’s alibi - working in the fields - was not properly rebutted, and that the trial court mechanically accepted the prosecution’s version without applying the required scrutiny.
For the Respondent
The State contended that the victim’s testimony, though conveyed through gestures, was natural, consistent, and corroborated by multiple independent witnesses, the forensic report, and the prompt disclosure. It emphasized that the trial court had taken all necessary precautions to ensure the victim’s competency and that the scientific evidence conclusively established sexual intercourse.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought acquittal on all charges, arguing that the conviction was unsustainable in law and fact. He requested that the judgment of the trial court be set aside and that he be acquitted.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the testimony of a deaf and dumb victim, recorded through gestures with the aid of a trained interpreter and corroborated by forensic evidence, can constitute reliable and sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for rape under Section 376(2)(j)(l) IPC, even in the absence of physical injuries or direct eyewitnesses.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel relied on State of Rajasthan v. Darshan Singh (2012) 5 SCC 789 to argue that while deaf and dumb persons are competent witnesses, their testimony must be scrutinized with greater caution. He contended that the victim’s inability to articulate details, the absence of injuries, and the lack of independent corroboration rendered her testimony inherently suspect. He further argued that the trial court failed to appreciate the appellant’s plausible alibi and that the forensic report did not conclusively prove penetration.
For the Respondent
The State relied on Meesala Ramakrishan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1994) 4 SCC 182 and Rai Sandeep @ Deenu v. State of NCT of Delhi (2012) 8 SCC 21 to assert that the victim’s testimony was credible, consistent, and natural. It emphasized that the trial court had properly recorded the victim’s competency, used demonstrative aids like a plastic doll, and that the forensic evidence of seminal stains on both the victim’s vaginal slides and the appellant’s underwear provided irrefutable corroboration. The State argued that the law does not require corroboration in rape cases if the victim’s testimony inspires confidence.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous review of the evidence, beginning with the competency of the victim as a witness. It noted that the trial court had satisfied itself regarding the victim’s ability to understand questions and respond through gestures, in compliance with Section 119 of the Indian Evidence Act, which permits evidence to be given in any manner that makes it intelligible, including signs and gestures.
"The law requires that there must be a record of signs and not the interpretation of signs."
The Court affirmed that the use of a trained interpreter, Padma Sahu (PW-08), and the adoption of a plastic doll to demonstrate the act were appropriate measures to ensure clarity and fairness. The victim’s consistent identification of the appellant through photographs and her demonstration of the act were deemed reliable.
The Court further held that the prompt disclosure made by the victim to her mother immediately after the incident was a critical circumstance supporting the truthfulness of her testimony. The mother’s testimony, along with that of the father and independent villagers, formed a chain of corroboration that was unshaken by cross-examination.
The forensic evidence was pivotal. The State Forensic Science Laboratory report (Exhibit P-26) confirmed the presence of seminal stains and human spermatozoa on both the victim’s vaginal slides and the appellant’s underwear. The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that the absence of injuries negated the occurrence of rape, citing Dr. Khan’s testimony that in cases involving disabled victims or delayed examination, injuries may not be visible.
"The victim’s testimony, therefore, constitutes substantive evidence. The same further stands corroborated by the surrounding circumstances, including the testimony of her mother regarding the immediate disclosure, the evidence of other witnesses, and the forensic report which detected seminal stains and human sperm on the vaginal slides of the victim as well as on the underwear of the accused."
The Court also dismissed the appellant’s alibi defense, noting that no witness was called to substantiate his claim of being in the fields all day. Mere suggestions in cross-examination could not displace the prosecution’s established narrative.
Regarding the charge under Section 450 IPC, the Court found that the victim’s testimony, supported by the site map (Exhibit P-08) and the complaint, established that the appellant entered the dwelling house without lawful authority and with the intent to commit rape.
The Court concluded that the trial court had correctly applied the principles laid down in Rai Sandeep @ Deenu, where the Supreme Court held that a witness whose testimony is natural, consistent, and unshaken by cross-examination qualifies as a "sterling witness" whose version can be accepted without corroboration.
The Verdict
The appeal was dismissed. The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court: life imprisonment until natural death under Section 376(2)(j)(l) IPC, with a fine of Rs. 20,000, and five years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 450 IPC, with a fine of Rs. 1,000, both sentences to run concurrently. The appellant, already in custody, was directed to serve the sentence. The Court further directed the Registry to send a copy of the judgment to the jail superintendent, informing the appellant of his right to appeal to the Supreme Court through the Legal Services Committee.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Credibility of Non-Verbal Testimony Is Legally Recognized
- Practitioners must argue that the testimony of deaf and dumb victims, when recorded with proper safeguards (trained interpreter, demonstrative aids, court satisfaction of competency), is admissible and sufficient for conviction.
- Courts cannot dismiss such testimony merely on account of physical disability; the focus must be on consistency, spontaneity, and corroboration.
Forensic Evidence Is Critical in Absence of Physical Injuries
- In cases involving disabled victims or delayed medical examination, absence of injuries does not negate rape; forensic evidence (semen, spermatozoa) becomes the cornerstone of corroboration.
- Seizure and chain of custody of biological samples must be meticulously documented to ensure admissibility.
Prompt Disclosure Is a Powerful Corroborative Factor
- Immediate disclosure to a close relative, followed by consistent narration to others, significantly bolsters the victim’s credibility.
- Delay in reporting or inconsistent statements must be rigorously challenged; here, the absence of any delay or contradiction was decisive.
Alibi Must Be Substantiated by Evidence
- Mere suggestion of an alibi during cross-examination is insufficient. The defence must lead positive evidence to establish it.
- In the absence of such evidence, the prosecution’s narrative prevails, especially when supported by multiple independent witnesses and scientific findings.
