2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 10232

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay S. Agrawal, Amitendra Kishore Prasad, JJ
State Of Chhattisgarh – Appellant
Versus
Gangaram Sinha – Respondent
ACQA No. 363 of 2025 | CRA No. 607 of 2024

The testimony of a deaf and mute person, provided through a competent interpreter, is admissible as substantive evidence. Furthermore, a conviction for caste-based atrocities requires proof of a nexus between the crime and the victim's caste, distinguishing it from general penal offenses.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376 - Rape conviction - Testimony of deaf and mute witness - Admissibility - Evidence given through signs or gestures with assistance of competent interpreter is substantive oral evidence and admissible - Must be read in conjunction with surrounding circumstances including medical and scientific evidence. (Paras 14, 16, 17, 18)

(B) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(2)(v) - Offence against member of scheduled tribe - Mere proof of caste is insufficient - Must be established that offence was committed on ground of victim's caste identity - Nexus between offence and caste identity is essential ingredient. (Para 33)

(C) Appeal against acquittal - Principles for interference - Appellate court should be slow in reversing acquittal - Interference warranted only if judgment is perverse, based on misreading of material evidence, or if no other reasonable view is possible. (Paras 29, 30)

Facts of the case:
A member of a community belonging to a scheduled tribe, who was deaf and mute, was subjected to sexual assault by the respondent, who was known to the family for labor work. The incident was witnessed by the victim's brother, who found them in an enclosed space in a compromising position. The trial court convicted the respondent for rape but acquitted him of charges under the special legislation concerning atrocities against vulnerable communities.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the testimony of the disabled victim, recorded through a trained interpreter, was consistent, credible, and corroborated by the eyewitness account of the victim's brother, the medical report confirming intercourse, and forensic evidence identifying the presence of semen on the clothing of both the victim and the accused. The court further found that there was no evidence suggesting that the offense was specifically motivated by the victim's caste status.

Issues: Whether the conviction under the penal code for sexual assault was sustainable based on the testimony of a deaf and mute witness, and whether the acquittal under the special statute for caste-based atrocities was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: The evidence of a disabled witness, when interpreted accurately by a qualified professional and corroborated by physical and forensic findings, constitutes compelling proof of guilt. However, for a conviction under specific legislation against caste-based atrocities, the prosecution must prove a clear nexus between the crime and the victim's caste identity, beyond mere proof of the victim's social status.

Result: Both appeals, one against conviction and one against acquittal, were dismissed.