Testimony Of Differently-Abled Rape Survivor Cannot Be Discarded For Inability To Name Accused: Sikkim High Court
The Sikkim High Court has held that the testimony of a differently-abled victim in a sexual offence case cannot be discarded merely due to her inability to clearly communicate or identify the accused, stressing that courts must focus on the substance of what is conveyed rather than the manner of expression. The Court observed that failure of a victim with intellectual disability to...
The Sikkim High Court has held that the testimony of a differently-abled victim in a sexual offence case cannot be discarded merely due to her inability to clearly communicate or identify the accused, stressing that courts must focus on the substance of what is conveyed rather than the manner of expression.
The Court observed that failure of a victim with intellectual disability to explicitly name the perpetrator cannot override medical and forensic evidence. It further emphasized that undue weight cannot be given to the “silences” of such victims, cautioning that doing so may result in miscarriage of justice.
Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai And Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan remarked that: “Failure to name the appellant as the aggressor should not be given undue weightage lest truth gets suppressed in her silences. The inability of a differently abled victim in not being able to name the appellant as the aggressor, cannot be a ground to discard the prosecution version… Our inability to understand the victim's language should not lead to a failure of justice. What is important is to know what she has to say more than how she says it.”
Further the Court stated that :“The testimony of a prosecutrix with a disability… cannot be considered weak or inferior only because such an individual interacts with the world in a different manner… as long as the testimony… meets the criteria for inspiring judicial confidence, it is entitled to full legal weight.”
The victim, a 25-year-old woman suffering from approximately 70% intellectual disability along with cerebral palsy, was sexually assaulted on 2 September 2022. The incident was witnessed by her niece, following which an FIR was lodged.
After investigation, the appellant—who worked at the victim's house—was charged under Section 376(2)(l) IPC, which deals with rape of a woman suffering from mental or physical disability. The trial court convicted him and sentenced him to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment along with a fine.
The Court noted that although the victim did not explicitly name the accused, she clearly indicated sexual abuse and stated that her niece had witnessed the incident. Her inability to articulate details or identify the accused directly did not weaken the prosecution case.
Further the Court observed that according to medical evidence it was clear that the victim had been sexually abused due to which she had suffered the injuries. The forensic report further confirmed the presence of human blood in vaginal samples.
Relying on the testimony of the victim's niece (eyewitness) along with family members, the court noted that the appellant was present at the scene and had followed the victim just before the incident. There cannot be confusion regarding the identity of the appellant and his presence at the place of occurrence when the crime was committed.
Thus, the Court upheld the sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment along with fine.
Case Name: Rinzing Sherpa v/s State of Sikkim
Case No.: Crl. A. No.9 of 2024
Date of Decision: 29.04.2026