1

CRL. APPEAL @ SLP(CRL.)NO.2172 OF 2014

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1820

of 2017

(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.2172 of 2014)

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Appellant(s)

VERSUS

BANDU @ DAULAT

Respondent(s)

O R D E R

1.

Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for the

parties and perused the record.

2.

The respondent was tried and convicted under Section

376 I.P.C. by the trial court for the alleged offence of rape

committed on 29^th June, 2008 but has been acquitted by the

High Court.

3.

The victim is deaf and dumb and mentally challenged to

some extent. Main evidence on record is of PW-1, Asha

Ramratan Bangar @ Asha Panchu Dhurve, the mother of the

victim. She lodged FIR on the next day i.e. 30^th June, 2008 to

the effect that the accused was the landlord of the house in

which they were living. The victim was lured away by the

accused by offering some sweet meat and was taken to the

market. She did not return home and it was at 9.30 p.m. in the

Digitally signed by

MAHABIR SINGH

Date: 2017.10.28

12:27:48 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

2

CRL. APPEAL @ SLP(CRL.)NO.2172 OF 2014

night that two boys brought her home. The victim explained to

her mother by gesture as to what happened. On this version,

FIR was registered and investigation was carried out. Medical

examination of the victim confirmed the commission of rape.

The age of the victim at the time of the commission of the

offence was about 14 years.

4.

The High Court held that since the victim herself was not

examined, the factum of rape and involvement of the accused

could not be held to have been proved. This is the basis of the

order of the High Court.

5.

Mr. Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, learned counsel for the

State, submitted that even though the victim may be the best

witness to establish the charge of rape, having regard to the

fact that the victim in the present case was deaf and dumb and

mentally retarded, even in absence of her being examined as a

witness, there was sufficient evidence warranting conviction of

the accused.

6.

Though respondent was served, he has not put in

appearance in this Court. We requested Ms. Shirin Khajuria,

Advocate, to assist the Court as Amicus. Accordingly Ms.

Khajuria assisted the Court after thorough preparation. We

record our appreciation for Ms. Khajuria for painstaking

assistance.

3

CRL. APPEAL @ SLP(CRL.)NO.2172 OF 2014

7.

The evidence of the mother of the victim clearly shows

that it was the respondent-accused who took away the victim.

The victim and the accused were seen together by PW-2,

Gajanan Marutrao Sonule on the date of commission of offence.

The victim immediately after the occurrence narrated the same

to her mother as to what happened as reflected in the FIR and

the version of the PW-1. Rape has been confirmed by medical

evidence. Identity of accused is not in dispute. In these

circumstances the trial court having convicted the respondent,

the High Court was not justified in setting aside the conviction.

8.

Accordingly, we restore conviction of the respondent

under Section 376 IPC and sentence him to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for seven years. He may be taken into custody

to serve out the remaining sentence.

9.

The appeal is accordingly allowed.

10.

Before parting with this order we may deal with the

suggestion of learned amicus that there should be special

centres for examination of vulnerable witnesses in criminal

cases in the interest of conducive environment in Court so as to

encourage a vulnerable victim to make a statement. Such

centres ought to be set up with all necessary safeguards. Our

attention has been drawn to guidelines issued by the Delhi

High Court for recording evidence of vulnerable witnesses in

4

CRL. APPEAL @ SLP(CRL.)NO.2172 OF 2014

criminal matters and