In a significant judgment, the Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the conviction of five men accused of the brutal gang rape of a young deaf and mute woman. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, emphasized the reliability of the victim’s testimony despite her communication challenges, relying on corroborative forensic and DNA evidence to affirm the sentences. The appellants, Sanjeev Kumar Kujur, Surajdas, Dole Kujur, Krishna Kumar, and Gourishankar, were convicted under Sections 366, 342, and 376(D) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the Additional Sessions Court in Bilaspur, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for terms up to 25 years.
Background of the Case
The incident dates back to August 25, 2019, when the victim, a 22-year-old mute and deaf woman, was abducted from Ratanga Bazaar in Marwahi District by the appellants, who forced her onto a motorcycle. They took her to Rajadih Gaganitola Pond, where, as alleged by the prosecution, they bound her hands and feet and proceeded to sexually assault her in turns. The victim managed to return home later that night and conveyed the horrific ordeal to her mother and aunt through gestures, leading to the immediate filing of an FIR.
Legal Issues
The appeal raised several crucial legal issues, primarily focusing on the reliability of the victim’s testimony recorded via an interpreter, the forensic DNA evidence, and procedural aspects of the investigation. The appellants’ counsel, Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, argued that the victim’s communication limitations and the absence of video documentation, as per Section 119 of the Indian Evidence Act, weakened the prosecution’s case. He also challenged the DNA evidence on procedural grounds, alleging improper collection of blood samples and delays in FIR registration.
In contrast, the Deputy Advocate General, Mr. Shashank Thakur, contended that the victim’s testimony, reinforced by medical and DNA evidence, provided compelling proof of the crime. He emphasized that the victim identified the accused with assistance and testified with consistency despite her disabilities.
Court’s Observations and Key Findings
The High Court dismissed the appellants’ arguments, underscoring the victim’s credible and consistent testimony, corroborated by forensic evidence. Chief Justice Sinha stated, “We see no reason to doubt the credibility and trustworthiness of the victim,” adding that her testimony, though communicated through signs and gestures, painted a clear and distressing picture of the crime.
The Court recognized the challenges faced by individuals with disabilities in legal proceedings and noted the trial court’s efforts to accommodate the victim. It held that, while video documentation was lacking, the testimony given through a qualified interpreter was sufficient. The Court cited Section 119 of the Indian Evidence Act, affirming that alternative methods of communication, when facilitated by a qualified interpreter, hold substantial evidentiary value.
The Court further highlighted the reliability of the forensic findings. Forensic reports confirmed the presence of DNA from multiple accused on the victim’s clothing and body, aligning with her account of the assault. Justice Guru remarked, “In cases of sexual assault, especially where the victim is vulnerable, corroboration through scientific evidence strengthens the case,” emphasizing the role of DNA reports in cases involving individuals with communication disabilities.
The High Court upheld the sentences handed down by the trial court, citing the “horrendous nature of the crime” against a disabled woman. It dismissed defence arguments about alleged lapses in evidence collection, stating, “Mere bald statements challenging the collection process do not shake the credibility of the DNA findings.” The Court maintained that each of the sentences, ranging up to 25 years in rigorous imprisonment, was appropriate given the nature of the offense and the vulnerability of the victim.
This judgment aligns with Supreme Court rulings, including Ganesan v. State and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Pankaj Chaudhary, which support convictions based on the sole testimony of a credible victim, especially in sexual assault cases. The High Court reiterated that demanding corroboration of a sexual assault survivor’s testimony, particularly a disabled individual, “adds insult to injury.”
