The central legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on victim testimonies, medical evidence, and witness statements to establish guilt, along with considering the incapacity of the victims to consent due to mental retardation and age.

Surjit Singh, J.(Oral)-Appellant has appealed against the judgment, dated 9th May, 2007, of the learned Sessions Court, whereby he has been convicted of offences, under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two years, in respect of offence, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code; and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two months, in respect of offence, under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Case of the prosecution, as per evidence on record, is like this. In February, 2006, on the 15th day of the month of Magh, celebration of birth of a child was arranged by Madho Ram in his house in village Dehal, Mauza Kundan Jiya. Several persons, including appellant Trilok Chand, attended that function. Function was celebrated in the night and, therefore, the guests, who came from other places, were accommodated, for the night, in the houses of neighbours of Madho Ram. Appellant was accommodated in the house of Hujti Ram (PW-4), who has two daughters, both of whom are suffering from mental retardation, to the extent of 40 per cent, per testimony of PW-3 Dr. Dinesh Sharma. The date of birth of elder daughter of PW-4 Hujti Ram is 12th July, 1988 and that of the younger 7th May, 1991. Appellant slept in the same room, in which two daughters of PW-4 Hujti Ram, alongwith their mother PW-5 Simro Devi, had slept. Appellant allegedly committed rape on both the daughters of PW-4 Hujti Ram. The two daughters of PW-4 Hujti Ram were examined as PW-14 and PW-15, during the course of trial. The mother of the victims noticed the appellant committing the crime but kept quiet, as the appellant threatened her and the two girls by taking out a dagger.

3. Next day, when PW-4 Hujti Ram noticed tooth bite marks on the cheeks of the victims and questioned them about the same, they told that the appellant, who had slept in their house, as a guest, on the previous night, not only caused tooth bite injuries but also sexually assaulted them. PW-4 Hujti Ram did not lodge any report with the police, fearing social stigma.

4. Tooth bite marks on the cheeks of the two girls were also noticed by PW-7 Maya Devi, on the next following day, when she and the victims alongwith their mother PW-5 Simro Devi had gone to collect fuel wood from the nearby forest. PW-7 Maya Devi enquired from the victims as to how did they receive tooth bite marks on their cheeks. They told her that on the previous night they had been subjected to sexual intercourse by the appellant and it was he who had bit them on their cheeks with his teeth.

5. PW-7 Maya Devi informed PW-11 Veena Devi about the incident. PW-11 Veena Devi also has a mentally retarded daughter, who, at times, is kept at the headquarters of a Non-governmental Organization, known as CORD, at Tapovan near Sidhwari, because there is some arrangement for training mentally retarded girls to take care of and manage their bodies and personal hygiene. The two victims also used to be sent to that place.

6. PW-11 Veena Devi informed some of the office bearers of the said Non-governmental Organization about the incident. One of those office bearers is PW-6 Jyoti. Enquiry was conducted by PW-6 Jyoti and another office bearer of the Organization and then the father of the prosecutrices was made to understand the seriousness of the matter and persuaded to lodge report with the police. He took his two victim daughters to Police Station Palampur and lodged report Ex. PW-4/A.

7. During the course of investigation, both the prosecutrices were subjected to medical examination. It was found that their hymens were torn and vagina admitted two fingers easily. They were examined by PW-1 Dr. Veena Sharma and PW-2 Dr.