Rape charge falls after Madras High Court finds no mention of ‘signs and gestures’ in deaf and mute survivor’s statement

The Madras High Court said that the conviction of the appellant for the offence of rape is not sustainable. (Image enhanced using AI)

Findings

• The conviction of the appellant for the offence of rape is not sustainable.
• The conviction of the appellant for offence of rape is modified to cheating and the sentence is modified to the period already undergone and to pay Rs 2 lakh as compensation to the woman.
• The doctor, who examined the woman, did not find any traces of recent injury in the private parts.
• In this case, the chain of circumstances is not intact and complete.
• From the attendant circumstances, it is clear that there is no use of force.
• The proposal for marriage of the survivor with the appellant is admitted by the appellant, which cannot be a one-day affair, without some relationship and substance.
• The person who wrote the complaint not examined.
• The woman admits that she does not know to read and write.
• The compliance with Section 119 of the Evidence Act is not optional but mandatory when dealing with testimony of verbally disabled witnesses.
• The proviso to Section 119 mandates videography when interpreters or special educators are used.
• In this case, no videography was done.
• Thus the condition precedent before considering and acting upon the evidence of a verbally disabled person was not followed.
• In this case there is nothing to show that the two interpreters appointed were administered oath before interpretation as required by the law.
• The contradiction whether the incident had taken place on November 18, 2015 or November 27, 2015 cannot be brushed aside and the origination of the case becomes doubtful.
• The surrounding circumstances, including admitted discussions about marriage, led to the conclusion that the element of force had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Allegations

• On November 18, 2015, a 20-year-old deaf and mute woman, was said to have been sexually assaulted at Pennagaram in Dharmapuri district.
• The complaint was lodged only on November 28, 2015, after her mother returned from Bengaluru, where she claimed to have been undergoing medical treatment.
• The case was registered initially under Section 376 (rape) of the IPC.
• Following the investigation, the accused was tried and on December 11, 2018, a trial court convicted him and sentenced him to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment.
• The court also directed him to pay Rs 5 lakh as compensation to the survivor.
• Challenging the conviction, the accused filed the present appeal before the high court.

Arguments

Defence

• Senior advocate K Srinivasan, appearing for the appellant, argued that the entire prosecution case rested solely on the testimony of the woman, which was legally unreliable due to gross violations of Section 119 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 governing evidence of persons unable to communicate verbally.
• Section 119 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, deals with testimony from a “dumb witness” (someone unable to speak).
• It allows such a witness to give evidence through writing or signs in open court, which is treated as oral evidence, with courts using interpreters or special educators and videography for clarity, ensuring fairness for those with speech impairments.
• It was submitted that although interpreters were used at multiple stages- during police investigation, recording of the statement under Section 164 CrPC, and during trial, none of them were administered oath.
• Further, the statements were neither video graphed nor did they record the signs and gestures used by the survivor.
• The defence also highlighted material contradictions in the prosecution case regarding the date of occurrence, pointing out that the survivor never specified a clear date, while her mother gave conflicting versions stating that the disclosure was made either on November 18, 2015, or November 27, 2015.
• Additionally, it was argued that despite claims of bleeding and injury, no such injuries were reflected in the medical report.

Prosecution

• Additional public prosecutor Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam contended that the woman’s testimony was consistent and corroborated by medical evidence showing sexual intercourse.
• The prosecution argued that the delay in lodging the complaint was natural and adequately explained, given the mother’s absence from the village.
• It was further submitted that the Evidence Act was procedural in nature and that minor irregularities should not override substantive justice, especially in cases involving vulnerable victims.