Court holds that testimony of speech-impaired minor victim, recorded with interpreter's assistance, is trustworthy; non-videographing of statement under Section 119 Evidence Act not fatal without prejudice
In a significant judgment delivered on October 31, 2026, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court upheld the conviction of two accused persons, Rakesh Singh and Sanjeev Sharma, for the rape and kidnapping of an 11-year-old speech-impaired minor girl. The court acquitted the third accused, Rashpal Sharma, due to lack of direct implication by the victim.
The case arose from an incident dated November 16, 2014, when the minor victim, who suffers from speech impairment and partial visual disability, went to a field to collect leaves for goats and was subsequently kidnapped and raped. The victim's father lodged a written complaint after the victim was found unconscious with blood-stained clothes. The statement of the victim was recorded before the Magistrate with the assistance of an independent interpreter, Roshan Bhan, Principal of a School for the Hearing Impaired, who was duly sworn in by the trial court.
The appellants challenged their conviction on multiple grounds, particularly focusing on the victim's speech impairment, the non-videographing of her testimony as mandated by Section 119 of the Evidence Act, discrepancies in the place of occurrence mentioned in her statements, and the absence of medical evidence conclusively proving sexual assault.
Addressing these contentions, the High Court observed that the victim was not deaf and dumb but had speech difficulties. Her testimony was recorded with the help of a competent and impartial interpreter, and the appellants did not raise objections or demonstrate any prejudice during the trial regarding the recording or cross-examination of the interpreter. The court emphasized that mere non-compliance with the proviso to Section 119 (requiring videography) is not fatal if no miscarriage of justice is demonstrated.
The court relied on Supreme Court precedents establishing that persons with disabilities, including speech impairments, are competent witnesses and that their testimony should not be devalued or treated as inherently weak. It noted the victim's evidence was consistent in implicating the two appellants while exculpating the third accused. Minor discrepancies regarding the exact place of occurrence were held not to be fatal, considering the victim's borderline intellectual abilities and the traumatic circumstances.
Regarding medical evidence, the court held that the absence of seminal spermatozoa and lack of external injuries in the medical examination, conducted about 72 hours after the incident, do not negate the occurrence of rape. The presence of blood and semen stains on the victim's clothing, confirmed by the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), provided supporting evidence to the prosecution's case. The court also dismissed the appellants' argument that failure to examine marginal witnesses to seizure memos affected the prosecution's case, relying on the investigating officer's unchallenged testimony and established legal principles that the seizure evidence could be accepted despite hostile or unexamined witnesses.
Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the appeals of Rakesh Singh and Sanjeev Sharma, affirming their conviction and sentences of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years along with fines. However, the appeal of Rashpal Sharma was allowed, and he was acquitted for lack of evidence implicating him in the rape.
This judgment underscores the judiciary's recognition of the credibility of disabled victims and the careful scrutiny of evidence in sexual offence cases, balancing procedural technicalities against substantive justice. It reiterates that the testimony of disabled victims, recorded with appropriate safeguards such as interpreter assistance, can validly form the basis for conviction, and minor inconsistencies or absence of medical corroboration do not necessarily undermine the prosecution's case.
Bottom Line:
Rape - Testimony of speech-impaired minor victim recorded with assistance of interpreter - Mere non-videographing of statement under Section 119 of Evidence Act is not fatal unless prejudice or miscarriage of justice is shown - Conviction can rest on sole testimony of prosecutrix if trustworthy - Medical opinion not suggestive of sexual assault is not conclusive - Presence of semen and blood stains on victim's clothes supported prosecution - Co-accused entitled to benefit of doubt where victim did not implicate him.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 119 Evidence Act, 1872; Section 164A Cr.P.C.; Sections 363, 376, 109 Ranbir Penal Code (RPC)
