Back
SIKKIM HIGH COURT
Meenakshi Madan Rai and Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, JJ.
Rinzing Sherpa – Appellant
versus
State of Sikkim – Respondent
Crl.A.No.9 of 2024
Decided on 29.4.2026
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Ms Gita Bista, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel)
For the Respondent: Mr. Yadev Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor
IMPORTANT POINT
Rape of mentally disabled girl – Inability of a differently abled victim in not being able to name her aggressor, cannot be a ground to discard prosecution version.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376(2)(l) – Rape of mentally disabled girl – Conviction and sentence – Forensic Evidence confirms prosecution story of rape of victim – RFSL report qualifies as a report prepared under Section 293 Cr.P.C. and is admissible regardless of fact that expert was not examined – Victim’s deposition does inspire judicial confidence as she had clearly stated that she was sexually abused – Inability of a differently abled victim in not being able to name appellant as aggressor, cannot be a ground to discard prosecution version as ocular evidence is corroborated by medical and forensic evidence – Sentence of ten years of rigorous imprisonment and fine of twenty-five thousand rupees is just and proper – Conviction and sentence affirmed – Compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- also recommended. (Paras 22, 23, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J.—In the present appeal, we are examining a judgment of conviction and sentence under Section 376(2)(l) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court (the learned Sessions Judge) after a trial.
2. The victim (PW-4) is a woman with intellectual or development disability and cerebral palsy.
3. She was identified as a person suffering from 70% “mental retardation” with permanent multiple disabilities. Section 2(r) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (the Disabilities Act) defines “mental retardation” to mean a condition of arrested or incomplete development of mind of a person which is specially characterised by sub-normality of intelligence. The victim was also suffering from cerebral palsy. “Cerebral Palsy” has been defined in Section 2(e) of the Disabilities Act to mean a group of non-progressive conditions of a person characterised by abnormal motor control posture resulting from brain insult or injuries occurring in the pre-natal, peri-natal or infant period of development.
4. The issues raised by the learned counsel for the appellant concerns how we should understand and appreciate statements of such victims of sexual offences and the corroborating evidences.
The Appellant’s case
5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the victim had not named the appellant and had alleged that the assault on her was at home and not at the playground. She contends that the medical opinion does not establish the appellant as the aggressor; that the evidence of the victim’s niece (PW-5) is contradicted by her admission in cross-examination; and that no injury was seen on the body of the appellant during his medical examination. She relied upon two judgments of the Supreme Court, which we will now examine.
6. In Raju & Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 15 SCC 133, the Supreme Court was examining the testimony of the prosecutrix in a gang rape case where it held that though the testimony is believable on a par with an injured witness, it cannot always be presumed to be the gospel truth.
7. In Santosh Prasad alias Santosh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2020) 3 SCC 443, the Supreme Court was examining a case of a conviction relying solely upon the deposition of the prosecutrix when material contradiction was present in her deposition and neither independent witness nor medical evidence supported the prosecution case. 8. We are of the view that the facts of the present case are distinguishable to the facts of the above cases as discussed hereinafter.
The Prosecution’s case
9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied upon the evidence of the victim’s niece (PW-5) who was an eyewitness, victim’s mother (PW-1), victim’s sister-in-law (PW-2) also the mother of PW-5, and PW-5’s cousin (PW-7) to establish the prosecution case. He submitted that the medical evidence confirms the prosecution story; that as per the RFSL Report human blood was detected in the vaginal swab as well as the vaginal wash of the victim. Thus, he submits that the RFSL Report confirmed the prosecution story as well.
10. In Mange vs. State of Haryana, (1979) 4 SCC 349 relied upon by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Supreme Court held that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of an eyewitness though in this case his testimony stood corroborated by the blood stains and the clothes of the “dumb and deaf” prosecutrix and the medical evidence. The Supreme Court held that the medical examinations finding of torn hymen and bruises was sufficient to hold the accused guilty.
The Facts
11. On 02.09.2022, the victim’s sister-in-law lodged an FIR (exhibit P-2/PW-2) stating that the victim who was 25 years old and “mentally unstable since birth” was witnessed by her daughter (PW-5) being sexually assaulted (raped) by the appellant who was 27 years old.
12. After investigation, the Investigating O
