The testimony of a person with a disability is not inherently inferior. Court-supported judicial confidence in such testimony may be established through corroboration by medical and forensic evidence, even if the victim cannot verbally identify the perpetrator or provide a standard statement.

JUDGMENT :

Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J.

1. 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 subnormality 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 i