Supreme Court restores rape conviction in case of deaf and dumb victim: State of Maharashtra vs. Bandu (24 October 2017)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 24 October 2017
Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 1820 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No.2172 of 2014)
Judges: Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit

Can a conviction for rape be upheld if the victim, who is deaf, dumb, and mentally challenged, does not testify in court? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a case where a High Court had acquitted an accused due to the victim’s inability to testify. The Supreme Court, in this case, examined whether the other evidence was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. The bench comprised of Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit.

Case Background

The case revolves around an incident that occurred on June 29, 2008, when a 14-year-old girl, who was deaf, dumb, and mentally challenged, was allegedly raped. The victim lived with her mother, Asha Ramratan Bangar, who is also referred as Asha Panchu Dhurve (PW-1), in a house owned by the accused, Bandu @ Daulat. According to the mother’s testimony, the accused lured the victim away by offering her sweets and took her to the market. When she did not return home, her mother became concerned. Later, at 9:30 PM, two boys brought the victim home. The victim then communicated to her mother through gestures what had happened. Following this, the mother lodged a First Information Report (FIR) on June 30, 2008. A medical examination of the victim confirmed that rape had been committed.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted the respondent under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, the High Court overturned this conviction, stating that since the victim was not examined due to her being deaf, dumb, and mentally challenged, the charge of rape and the involvement of the accused could not be proven. The High Court’s decision was based on the premise that the victim’s testimony was essential for a conviction in a rape case.

Legal Framework

The core legal provision in this case is Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which defines and prescribes punishment for the offense of rape. The section states:

“376. Punishment for rape.—(1) Any man who commits rape shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine: Provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than ten years. (2) Any man who commits rape,— (a) on a woman who is under twelve years of age; or (b) is a gang rape, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life, and shall also be liable to fine: Provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than twenty years.”

Additionally, the court considered the need for special arrangements for examining vulnerable witnesses, referencing the directions given in Sakshi v. Union of India and Ors (2004) 5 SCC 518 and the guidelines issued by the Delhi High Court.

Arguments

The State of Maharashtra, represented by Mr. Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, argued that while the victim’s testimony is usually crucial in rape cases, the circumstances of this case were exceptional. The victim’s being deaf, dumb, and mentally challenged meant that her testimony was not possible. The state argued that the other evidence on record was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. The key points of the State’s argument were:

• Mother’s Testimony (PW-1): The mother’s testimony clearly indicated that the accused had taken the victim away.
• Eyewitness Testimony (PW-2): PW-2, Gajanan Marutrao Sonule, had seen the victim and the accused together on the day of the incident.
• Victim’s Narration: The victim had narrated the incident to her mother through gestures immediately after it happened, which was reflected in the FIR and the mother’s version.
• Medical Evidence: Medical examination confirmed that rape had been committed.
• Identity of Accused: The identity of the accused was not in dispute.

The respondent, despite being served, did not appear in court. Ms. Shirin Khajuria, Advocate, was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the conviction of the accused solely on the ground that the victim was not examined as a witness due to her being deaf, dumb, and mentally challenged, despite other evidence on record.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court restored the conviction of the respondent under Section 376 IPC, sentencing him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment. The Court held that the High Court was not justified in setting aside the conviction based solely on the absence of the victim’s testimony.

The Court also addressed the need for special centers for examining vulnerable witnesses. It noted the guidelines issued by the Delhi High Court and the setting up of special centers in Delhi. The Court directed all High Courts to adopt similar guidelines and set up at least two special centers within three months, with more to be set up as needed.

The authorities were viewed by the Court as follows:

• Sakshi v. Union of India and Ors (2004) 5 SCC 518*: The directions in this case regarding the examination of vulnerable witnesses were followed and further supplemented.
• Delhi High Court Guidelines: The guidelines were approved and recommended for adoption by all High Courts.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the need to ensure justice for vulnerable victims who may not be able to testify in court. The Court recognized that the traditional requirement of victim testimony could be a barrier to justice in cases involving deaf, dumb, and mentally challenged individuals. The Court emphasized that other forms of evidence, such as the testimony of the victim’s mother, eyewitness accounts, medical evidence, and the victim’s immediate narration of the incident, could be sufficient to establish guilt.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence presented. It considered the victim’s inability to testify, the mother’s testimony, the eyewitness account, the medical evidence, and the victim’s immediate narration of the incident. The Court found that all these pieces of evidence, when considered together, were sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.

The Court emphasized that the High Court had erred in focusing solely on the lack of victim testimony and not considering the other evidence available. The Court stated, “In these circumstances the trial court having convicted the respondent, the High Court was not justified in setting aside the conviction.” The Court also noted that the identity of the accused was not in dispute and that the medical evidence confirmed the commission of rape.

The Court also addressed the need for special centers for vulnerable witnesses, stating, “We find merit in the above suggestion. In Sakshi v. Union of India and Ors (2004) 5 SCC 518 this Court, after due consideration of the above issue, issued following directions…”

The Court further directed all High Courts to adopt guidelines for examining vulnerable witnesses, stating, “We are of the view that all High Courts can adopt such guidelines if the same have not yet been adopted with such modifications as may be deemed necessary. Setting up of one centre for vulnerable witnesses may be perhaps required almost in every district in the country.”

Key Takeaways

The key takeaways from this judgment are:

• The testimony of a victim, especially a vulnerable one, is not the only evidence that can lead to a conviction. Other evidence, such as the testimony of witnesses, medical evidence, and circumstantial evidence, can be sufficient.
• High Courts should not acquit accused persons solely on the ground that the victim did not testify, especially if the victim is a vulnerable person.
• Special centers for vulnerable witnesses should be set up to provide a conducive environment for them to give evidence in court.
• The judgment underscores the importance of a holistic approach to evidence in cases involving vulnerable victims.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed all High Courts to:

• Adopt guidelines for recording evidence of vulnerable witnesses.
• Set up at least two special centers for vulnerable witnesses within their jurisdiction within three months.
• Set up more centers as per the decision of the High Courts.

Specific Amendments Analysis

Not Applicable

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the absence of the victim’s testimony, especially when the victim is vulnerable, should not automatically lead to the acquittal of the accused. The Court emphasized that other evidence, if credible and sufficient, can be used to establish guilt. This judgment reinforces the principle that the justice system must be flexible and responsive to the needs of vulnerable individuals and that the absence of victim testimony should not be a barrier to justice. It also mandates the creation of special centers to support such witnesses.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in The State of Maharashtra vs. Bandu @ Daulat is a significant step towards ensuring justice for vulnerable victims of crime. The Court’s restoration of the trial court’s conviction and its direction for the establishment of special centers for vulnerable witnesses highlight the importance of considering all forms of evidence and creating a supportive environment for those who may not be able to testify in court.