In Criminal Appeal No.218 of 2013-BOM HC- Rape victim is helpless, deaf & dumb married woman whose privacy and personal integrity has been shattered: Bombay HC modifies Trial Court order, sentences accused to 7 years rigorous imprisonment
Justices A.S. Gadkari & Milind N. Jadhav [19-08-2022]

Read Order: Madhukar Makaji Mudgul And Ors Vs. The State Of Maharashtra And Ors 

Tulip Kanth

Mumbai, August 20, 2022: In a case of rape of a deaf and dumb married woman, the Bombay High Court has substituted the sentence awarded by the Trial court to the Appellant-accused from 5 years to 7 years rigorous imprisonment and fine from Rs 1,000  to Rs 25,000.

Referring to Section 376(1) of the IPC, the Division Bench of Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Milind N. Jadhav opined that once the trial court had come to the conclusion that the prosecution had squarely proved the offence of rape committed by the accused on the victim beyond reasonable doubt, then there was no reason to defer from the statutory provision and award a lesser sentence than what is prescribed by the statute.

The factual background of this case was such that the mother of the victim, filed an FIR in respect of the alleged incident of rape on her daughter ‘X’ against the Appellant. The victim, her husband Bhausaheb who is blind and 2 years old son, accused and his family all stayed together in the matrimonial house. Victim ‘X’ is deaf and dumb and as such she communicates with the help of gestures/sign language. 

When the matter reached the Trial Court, the ADJ passed an order convicting the Appellant for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 503 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment of five years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000, in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. The Criminal Appeal was filed by the State of Maharashtra for enhancement of the sentence and another appeal was also filed by the accused against the imposition of punishment.

The Bench noted that since the victim is deaf and dumb, her evidence was recorded through the expert witness and held that the provisions of Section 119 of the Evidence Act had been fully complied with by the prosecution in proving its case. “Victim i.e. PW-2 has examined herself through the expert witness i.e. PW-1, who has interpreted by sign language and gestures of the victim in the court, as such the evidence so recorded is oral evidence”, opined the Bench.

Noticing that the Medical Report clearly stated that human semen was detected on pubic hair of accused, the Bench took note of the fact that though the victim is deaf and dumb, she gathered courage and informed her father-in-law first and thereafter her mother and without wasting time report was lodged. No married woman would put at stake her life by making such a serious allegation against her family member unless and until such a heinous act has taken place, the Bench added.

“ In the present case, it is seen that the victim is a helpless, deaf and dumb married woman whose privacy and personal integrity has been shattered by the Appellant”, said the Bench while also affirming the view that the evidence of the prosecutrix in the present case inspired confidence and also stood corroborated in material particulars on the basis of testimony of the prosecution witnesses.

Considering that ravishing such a handicapped/helpless woman, more specifically when she was alone inside the house and the entire case of the defence falling apart without proving the chain of circumstances, the Bench held that the sentence awarded by the trial court must be set aside. Thus, allowing the State’s appeal and dismissing the plea of the accused, the Bench imposed a sentence of 7 years and also asked the accused to surrender before the Additional Sessions Judge within 4 weeks.