The court emphasized the importance of considering the mental condition of the victim, corroborative evidence, and socio-economic factors in cases involving sexual offences against mentally challenged individuals.

JUDGMENT :

Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, C.J.

1. This appeal is filed by the original accused who has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 7(seven) years in addition to payment of fine of Rs.20,000/-.

2. Briefly stated the prosecution version was that the daughter of the complainant (hereinafter to be referred to as the victim girl) on the date of incident i.e. 21.06.2016 was aged about 21 years. She was mentally not fully developed. Nevertheless, she could pursue education upto Class-V. On 21.06.2016 she was alone at home, her parents having gone for labour work in Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. The accused who lived in the neighborhood came there in the afternoon and taking advantage of the solitude of the girl committed rape which the parents came to know about when they returned home and were informed by the girl. Initially the parents of the girl brought this issue to the notice of the accused and other family members. An attempt was made to settle the issue by payment of money to meet with the cost for treating the girl. According to the complainant, however, the doctors would not treat the girl unless an FIR was lodged. She, therefore, gave a written complaint to the police dated 03.07.2016 to this effect. Upon completion of investigation charge sheet was filed before the concerned Court. The learned Sessions Judge framed the charge alleging that on 21.06.2016 the accused i.e. Ranjit Kumar Das alias Kshirode Das son of Kshitish Chandra Das taking advantage of the loneliness of the victim committed rape on her and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC.

3. P.W.2, Sujata Nath (Banik) the mother of the victim and the first informant deposed that on 21.06.2016 she left home early morning and returned at about 12 in the afternoon. Her husband had also left home with her. Except for the victim girl there was no one else at home. When she came back she found that her daughter was lying on the floor. She was wearing her skirt and the top but her underpant was missing. When asked she told them that the accused Ranjit Kumar Das had come, asked for a glass of water which she offered. He caught her and committed rape. She further deposed that her daughter did not possess normal intellect. Her husband had also returned with her. She first reported the incident on the same day to Shasanka Das younger brother of the accused who requested that the incident may not be reported as he would settle it. He assured that he would arrange for the medical treatment of the girl. Following day, Vice Chairman of the Panchayat and other villagers visited the victim girl and assured her that the matter would be settled and not to make it public. Subsequently, on 2nd July amount of Rs.1,000/- was offered for the medical examination of the daughter. She went to Kanchanpur hospital where Dr. Shirshendu Dhar would not treat the girl unless police report was lodged. They came back and prepared a written complaint on 3rd July with the help of another person on which she put her signature which was submitted in the Kanchanpur police station. The FIR was exhibited at Exbt. 1. The police had recorded her statement and statement of her husband and arranged the medical examination of their daughter. She and her husband had accompanied their daughter to the hospitals. She stated that she knew Ranjit Kumar Das alias Kshirode Das. She identified the accused before the Court.

4. In the cross-examination she stated that the land on which her house was situated was purchased by her and her family from the sister-in-law of the accused. The house of the accused was situated nearby. Her daughter had studied upto Class-V. She could not continue further studies since from the childhood her intellect was not normal. She, however, could read and put signature. She agreed that the accused for a long time had not arranged to register the land in their name. She, however, den