HC: Deaf-mute rape survivor's statement admissible in court

05.08.2016, CHANDIGARH: The Punjab and Haryana high court has held that a deaf and mute rape survivor is competent to testify against the accused and her statement is admissible before the court. The HC has passed these orders while upholding the conviction of an accused from Jalandhar, who had raped a 13-year-old girl with speech and hearing impairment in 2011.

In this case, the trial court had recorded her statements after ascertaining that she could understand the gestures and signs and was able to respond. The accused, however, challenged his conviction on the grounds that her statement was not admissible.

The fast track court in Jalandhar had convicted the man in a case registered on February 18, 2011, for raping the girl and sentenced him 10 years in jail.

According to prosecution, the accused had raped the girl at her home on February 16, 2011, when the family was away. Though, the girl's stepmother had turned hostile and refused to identify the accused, the court had convicted him on the basis of the rape survivor's admissions, medical evidence and her father's statement.

Aggrieved from the conviction by the trial court, the accused had filed an appeal before the Punjab and Haryana high court.

One of his argument in his defence before the HC was that the sessions judge has failed to take the help of an interpreter to record the statement of the deaf and mute girl. It was urged that an amendment had been made in the Evidence Act in 2013, and the requirement was that if the witness was unable to communicate verbally then the court shall take the assistance of an interpreter or a special dictator in recording the statement that has to be videographed. It was urged that the trial court had failed to comply with the provisions contained in the Evidence Act.

Further claiming his innocence, the accused urged that he was a married man with children and could not do such act.

Dismissing his appeal, Justice Anita Chaudhary in her July 27 verdict held that as far as the procedure adopted by the court is concerned, the amendment in the Evidence Act was made in 2013. The statement of the victim was recorded in 2012, therefore, the argument had to be rejected.

"The victim is deaf and dumb and not mentally retarded. The trial judge after putting questions to the witness had concluded that she was a capable witness. A person who has sufficient capacity to testify can be examined if the witness is competent to testify," observed the court while upholding 10-year jail term of the accused.