The judgment establishes the admissibility and credibility of evidence given by a deaf and dumb witness through sign language, and emphasizes the need for caution and control in cross-examining such witnesses.

Mukta Gupta, J.

1. By the instant appeal, the appellant Chander Singh challenges the impugned judgment dated 17th December, 2013 whereby he has been convicted for the offence defined under Section 9(k), punishable under Section 10 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2002 (in short the POCSO Act) in FIR No.80/2013 registered at PS Mangol Puri and the order on sentence dated 18th December, 2013 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that on February 09, 2013 at about 7.28 PM, PW12 HC Laxman Singh was handed-over DD No.18, Ex.PW-12/A informing that a boy was kidnapping a girl and the said boy was apprehended by the caller at K Block complex. On reaching the spot, he found Chander Singh apprehended by public. Raj Kumar who made the call to the PCR was found to be the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix, who was a minor, deaf and dumb girl aged 12 years. Statement of the mother of the prosecutrix was recorded wherein she stated that at around 7.00 PM her daughter aged 12 years who was deaf and dumb had gone to throw garbage in the dustbin. She returned back in a perplexed and perturbed condition. When she and her brother asked her, she explained by sign language that near the dustbin one man pressed her mouth, her breast and the lower abdomen. The prosecutrix ran towards her house after freeing herself from his clutches. She and her brother along with the prosecutrix went to the dustbin where her daughter pointed out towards a boy whose name was revealed as Chander Singh, S/o of Sukhbir Singh who was apprehended by her brother. Her brother made the PCR call. Chander Singh was apprehended at the spot and both the prosecutrix and Chander Singh were got medically examined.

3. Statement of prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. with the help of interpreter Ms. Rita Kanojia PW-3 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Learned Magistrate questioned her generally. When she was able to the tell the name of her parents, sister and replied that she had no brother, her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she stated “He had mustache. He gagged my mouth with his hand. He pressed my breast with his hand. Then he caught hold of my hand. He was taking me by catching hold of my hand. He tried to press me by both his hands. When I tried to run away he gave a slap on my face. He had done it twice earlier. Do not want to say anything more”.

4. Though MLC of the prosecutrix was conducted obviously there would be no such injury which could be reflected in the MLC. After investigation was completed and charge-sheet was filed, Chander Singh was charged for offence defined under Section 7 and punishable under Section 8 of POCSO Act, besides Section 354-A IPC to which he pleaded not guilty.

5. During the course of trial, besides the prosecutrix who was examined as PW-2, her father, mother and maternal uncle were examined as PW-1, PW-4 and PW-5 respectively. The interpreter Ms. Rita Kanojia was examined as PW-3 and the learned Metropolitan Magistrate as PW-8. To prove the age of the prosecutrix the investigating officer produced the certificate from the school Ex.PW-14/D which noted her date of birth as February 17, 2000. Thus the prosecutrix was 8 days less than 13 years on the date of incident.

6. This Court need not note the testimony of any other witness except the prosecutrix PW-2 for the reason no other person witnessed the incident and her mother PW-4 whose evidence would be relevant and admissible under Section 6 and 8 of the Evidence Act. Statement of the prosecutrix in the Court was recorded with the assistance of PW-3 Rita Kanojia, Assistant Teacher/Support Person working at Nursery Primary School for Deaf, Sector-4, Rohini, an institution run by the Delhi Government, Social Welfare Department. The learned Trial Court