Back
2026 Supreme(Gau) 1246
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.
Debisaran Karmakar – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam Rep. By PP – Respondent
CRL.A(J) 22 of 2021
Decided On : 22-06-2026
For the Petitioner: Ms. B Sarma, Amicus Curiae,
For the Respondent: PP, ASSAM, N. Unni Krishnan Nair, Mr. R J Baruah Addl. P.P.,
The sole testimony of a sexual assault victim, including one with sensory impairments, is sufficient for conviction if found credible and cogent. Forensic omissions, such as the absence of DNA testing, do not invalidate a case where circumstantial, medical, and witness evidence collectively prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:(A) Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376(2)(l) - Sexual assault against woman with physical disability - Testimony of victim - Reliability of - It is settled principle that the testimony of a sexual assault survivor does not mandatorily require corroboration from independent sources to be deemed credible if it inspires judicial confidence. Minor contradictions in ancillary matters do not invalidate an otherwise consistent and trustworthy account of facts (Paras 14, 54, 57).
(B) Evidence - Testimony of sensory-impaired witness - Interpreter-aided statements - Admissibility - The testimony of a speech and hearing-impaired victim, provided through a competent interpreter, is admissible. In the absence of evidence rebutting the expertise or impartiality of the interpreter, such testimony remains reliable if consistent throughout the proceedings (Para 19).
(C) Criminal Procedure - Investigation - Omission to perform DNA examination - Effect of - Failure to perform specific forensic tests, such as DNA paternity testing, represents an investigation lapse but does not necessarily negate a conviction if the totality of evidence, including medical examination and witness corroboration, sufficiently establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 24, 57).
(D) Criminal Procedure - Section 313 Cr.P.C. - Adverse inference - A complete denial or absolute silence by an accused regarding specific incriminating material put to them during questioning justifies the court drawing an adverse inference against the accused (Para 28).
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for the rape of a sensory-impaired victim who conceived following the assault. The victim identified the accused through signs during a village meeting, which was later supported by multiple village witnesses and medical findings of pregnancy. The defense argued that the lack of DNA evidence, investigation gaps, and contradictions among witnesses rendered the conviction unsustainable.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the victim's testimony was consistent, cogent, and reliable. The medical evidence corroborated the assertion of sexual assault resulting in pregnancy. The court held that the conviction was well-founded based on the totality of the evidence and affirmed the trial court's decision.
Issues: Whether the testimony of a sensory-impaired victim, translated through an interpreter, constitutes sufficient evidence for a conviction, and whether the absence of forensic DNA evidence and various investigation lapses warrants an acquittal.
Ratio Decidendi: A survivor of sexual violence is a competent and reliable witness whose evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction even without secondary corroboration, provided the statement is found inherently credible and consistent with circumstantial evidence and medical records.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural background and trial history of the conviction under section 376(2)(l) ipc. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. appellate contentions regarding evidentiary discrepancies, silence of the accused, and credibility of prosecution witnesses. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. summary of testimonial evidence from the victim, medical officer, and police regarding the alleged sexual assault. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. evaluation of the credibility and corroboration of the victim's testimony, considering the victim's disability. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 5. final judicial assessment of the trial verdict, affirming conviction based on consistent evidence and adverse inference from non-explanation. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
JUDGMENT :
N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.
Heard Ms. B Sarma, learned Legal Aid counsel for the appellant and Mr. R J Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the respondents.
2. The present appeal has been instituted assailing the judgment and order dated 19.11.2020, passed by the Court of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tinsukia, Assam, in Sessions Case No. 28(T)/2019, convicting the appellant, herein, under Section 376(2)(l) IPC and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a term of 10 (ten) years with imposition of fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand), in default, to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for another 6 (six) months.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant, Satrughan Karmakar, lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge, Bordubi Police Station, inter-alia, alleging therein, that the appellant, herein, had committed rape on his daughter, who was a deaf & dumb girl. It was further alleged that as a result of the said rape committed upon his daughter, his daughter had become two months pregnant and the said fact was clearly explained by his daughter in a village meeting.
On receipt of the said FIR, the same was registered as Bordubi P.S. Case No. 144/2019 under Section 376 IPC.
Police on completion of the investigation, submitted a charge-sheet before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia. The case came to be transferred to the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S), Tinsukia, who had taken cognizance of the offence under Section 376 IPC. Thereafter, vide order dated 27.03.2019, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate(S), Tinsukia, had committed the matter to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia. The learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia, thereafter, transferred the matter to the Court of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tinsukia, for disposal.
The appellant, herein, on being produced from jail, the learned Trial Court proceeded to frame charge against the appellant under Section 376(2)(m) IPC.
The charge, on being read over and explained to the accused, he having pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, a trial ensued in the matter.
The prosecution in the trial had examined 11 (eleven) witnesses, including the victim girl.
The appellant was, thereafter, examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The appellant had also adduced a defence witness. The trial, thereafter, was concluded.
At the stage of passing of the judgment, the learned Trial Court had altered the charge from that under Section 376(2)(m) IPC to Section 376(2)(l) IPC. The altered charges were, thereafter, read over and explained to the accused, the accused pleaded not guilty to the altered charges and claimed to be tried.
However, after alteration of the charge, both the sides having declined to adduce further evidence or recall any of the witnesses, the evidence came to be closed and the evidence already available on record, was to be considered.
The learned Trial Court, upon conclusion of the trial, appreciating the evidences coming on record, proceeded vide judgment and order dated 19.11.2020, to convict the appellant, herein, under Section 376(2)(l) IPC and sentenced him
