Raipur: The High Court of Chhattisgarh upheld a trial court’s decision to sentence five men to 25 years of rigorous imprisonment in a gang-rape case of a 22-year-old deaf and mute woman.
The incident took place in 2019, where a young woman, who was forcibly abducted while begging for food, was subjected to sexual assault. A division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru reviewed the case, concluding that the trial court’s verdict was well founded on substantial evidence, leaving no room for alternative interpretation.
The division pointed out that the forensic and DNA evidence corroborated the prosecution’s case, strengthening the trial court’s ruling. The Tribunal stated: “The view taken by the trial court that the appellants are the perpetrators of the offense is a mere finding of fact based on the evidence available on record.”
According to the prosecution, on August 25, 2019, the five accused men conspired to kidnap the victim while she was returning from Ratanga Bazaar under the jurisdiction of Bilaspur’s Marwahi Police Station. Around 6-7pm, they forced her onto a motorcycle and took her to Rajadih Gaganitola Pond, where they allegedly restrained her by tying her hands and feet before assaulting her.
After the ordeal, the victim returned home visibly distraught and used gestures to convey her trauma to her mother and aunt, as she could only communicate non-verbally. She indicated pain and showed bruises on her face, back and waist. Her aunt noticed signs of physical abuse, including bleeding and abrasions. The next morning, the family reported the incident to the Marwahi police station, where the victim identified three of the perpetrators, showing them their houses and physical appearance.
The police investigation incorporated a local map of the crime scene and obtained consent for a medical examination of the victim. Dr. Subhadra Paikra, who conducted the examination, documented injuries consistent with sexual assault, suggesting the assault occurred 12 to 18 hours before the examination.
Further on forensic evidenceincluding analysis of clothing from both the victim and the accused, strengthened the prosecution’s case. DNA test results confirmed the involvement of the accused, supporting the case against them. Further, the testimony of Dr. Harshwardhan stated that the accused were physically capable of committing the murder.
During the appeal, defense counsel Yogendra Chaturvedi argued that the prosecution had failed to remove reasonable doubt, arguing that there were procedural lapses in recording the victim’s statement under Section 119 of the Indian Evidence Act, which deals with the testimony of communication-impaired persons. He argued that the victim’s gestures should have been recorded more precisely, citing inconsistencies in the evidence and highlighting the delay in filing the First Information Report (FIR), given the proximity of the police station.
Chaturvedi questioned the DNA evidence, claiming it was tampered with and questioned the test’s identification parade. He cited previous case law to argue that the high court should overturn the trial court’s ruling.
However, Deputy Solicitor General Shashank Thakur countered that the accused had committed a serious crime with medical evidence corroborating the victim’s account. He pointed to the victim’s physical injuries, including abrasions and a broken hymen, as conclusive evidence of sexual assault. Thakur highlighted the role of Pradeep Sharma, a deaf-mute instructor, who interpreted the victim’s gestures for the court. Through Sharma’s interpretation, the court heard about the victim’s experience, including being tied up and assaulted.
The high court found the victim’s account to be both credible and convincing despite communication barriers. The court concluded that the testimony, recorded with the help of an interpreter, was consistent with the physical evidence and the family’s statements. The court said, “We are of the view that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt,” dismissing the appeal and upholding the trial court’s decision.
In its ruling, the high court emphasized the importance of sensitively interpreting the testimony of disabled victims. The court ruled that the defendants must serve their sentence as determined by the trial court’s order dated March 26, 2021.
Earlier, the Additional Sessions Judge at Pendra Road, Bilaspur, convicted the accused under Sections 366, 342 and 376D of the IPC. The court sentenced them to 25 years’ rigorous imprisonment for gang rape, with additional terms for kidnapping and wrongful confinement, all to be served concurrently, along with fines and additional time served.