MUMBAI: Relying on Supreme Court’s observation that the testimony of a person with a disability can’t be considered weak or inferior only because they interact with the world in a different manner, a sessions court recently sentenced a 35-year-old salon worker to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment for abduction and rape of a woman with moderate intellectual disability in 2019, marking a rare conviction under Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.Calling the victim a “sterling witness”, judge Surekha A Sinha found the man guilty on multiple counts, including rape under IPC. He was given one year in jail under Section 92(b) of Disabilities Act (assaulting or using force against a person with a disability). The sentences are to run concurrently.Psychiatrists deposed that while the woman was 25 years old physically, her social age was around seven years and two months, with an IQ of 36.According to the prosecution, on April 29, 2019, the survivor’s mother noticed that she had gone missing after the family returned from voting in the Lok Sabha polls. When the woman returned home shortly after, she was in tears and revealed her assault. She said while playing in a nearby lane, the accused caught her hand and forcibly took her to the mezzanine floor of his residence. There, he threatened her with a knife, gagged her with a pillow, and sexually assaulted her. To destroy evidence, she said, the man washed her with soap.During trial, special public prosecutor Geeta Sharma examined 14 witnesses. While forensic reports were inconclusive — a result the prosecution attributed to the accused washing the victim after the assault — medical experts provided critical testimony. Doctors confirmed that the victim had suffered physical trauma consistent with sexual assault.The defence said the case was built on hearsay and cited minor discrepancies in the testimony. The judge rejected these, saying the testimony of a person with a disability must be treated with “utmost sensitivity”. “Minor discrepancies and contradictions are not fatal to the case of prosecution. Courts cannot cling to a fossil formula and insist upon corroboration even if, taken as a whole, the case spoken of by the victim of sex crime strikes the judicial mind as probable.”
