IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that videography is mandatory for testimonies of witnesses with communication impairments to ensure authenticity and reliability.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. RAMESH, J.

Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the order of conviction passed by the Sessions, Fast Track Mahila Court at Ariyalur in S.C. No. 109 of 2019 dated 15.07.2022, under Section 376(2)(l)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous life imprisonment for the rest of his life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 years and under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months by allowing the present Criminal Appeal.

1. The appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 years for the offence under Section 376(2)(l)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the offence under Section 342 of IPC, through the judgment of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Ariyalur, dated 15.07.2022, passed in Sessions Case No. 109 of 2019. The said judgment is put under challenge in the present appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the appeal are addressed according to the rank in the trial Court.

3. The brief case of the prosecution is as follows:

3.1. On 07.11.2018, when the victim was returning home near the fields of the accused, after collecting firewood, the accused had waylaid her and pulled her into his motor room, where he wrongfully confined her and after tying her hands and legs and gagging her mouth, he raped her. Thereafter, he threatened her not to reveal the incident to anyone and that he would kill her if she discloses it. Subsequently, he had repeated sexual intercourse with her, owing to which, the victim became pregnant. When the victim's mother came to know about her pregnancy, she questioned the accused through a panchayat. However, the accused had abused her with obscene words.

3.2. The victim's mother had given a complaint to the All Women Police Station, Jayankondam, on 23.02.2019 at 12.00 P.M. and a First Information Report (FIR) came to be registered against the accused for the offences under Sections 342, 376, 294(b) and 506(i) IPC. After due investigation, the Investigating Officer had filed the final report against the accused, charging him of having committed the offences under Sections 342, 376(2)(l)(n), 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC.

3.3. The Judicial Magistrate, Jayankondam, took the case on file in C.C. No. 34 of 2019 and had supplied the copies of the police report and other documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate had committed the case to the Principal Sessions Court, Ariyalur, which was taken on file as S.C. No. 109 of 2019. The trial Court had then framed charges against the accused for the offences under Sections 342, 376(2)(l)(n), 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC and when the charges were read over and explained to the accused, he had denied the charges and claimed that he was “not guilty.”

4. Before the trial Court, the prosecution had examined 14 witnesses PW-1 to PW-14 and marked 8 documents Exs.P.1 to P.8. Ex.C.1 is the document marked by the Court. No witness or documents were marked on the side of the accused.

5. The evidences let in by the prosecution before the trial Court are as follows:

5.1. PW-1, namely Manimegalai, is the mother of the victim. According to her, her daughter is aged about 27 years and unmarried, who is suffering from hearing and speech impairment, and she communicated with her only through sign language. She had deposed that a year before Diwali day, the accused had raped her. According to PW-1, a panchayat was held, wherein the uncle, sister and brother-in-law of the accused had stated that the accused had refu