Srinagar, Nov 2: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the 10-year jail sentence of two men convicted of kidnapping and raping an 11-year-old girl in Reasi, observing that her speech impairment could not be a ground to reject her testimony. The court, however, acquitted a third accused for lack of incriminating evidence.

Justice Rajnesh Oswal dismissed the appeals filed by Sanjeev Sharma alias Sanju and Rakesh Singh against their conviction under Sections 363 and 376 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC). The appeal filed by Rashpal Sharma was allowed, with the court setting aside his conviction and sentence and directing his release forthwith if not required in any other case.
In its 69-page judgment, the court made a significant observation on the testimony of persons with disabilities, stating that the victim's speech impairment could not prevent the court from ascertaining the truth.
"The victim suffers from a serious disability, but her disability cannot be a disability of the court to decipher the truth from her statement," Justice Oswal observed.
The judgment arose from appeals against the July 30, 2022 verdict of the Principal Sessions Judge, Reasi, which had sentenced all three accused to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 10,000 under Section 376 RPC. They were also awarded six months' imprisonment and a fine of Rs 500 under Section 363 RPC.
According to the prosecution, the incident occurred on November 16, 2014, when the minor had gone to agricultural land near her village. When she failed to return, her family launched a search and allegedly spotted the accused fleeing from bushes. The girl was later found unconscious and taken for medical treatment.
A complaint at Arnas Police Station led to the registration of FIR No. 89/2014. The prosecution subsequently filed a chargesheet against the three accused under Sections 363, 376 and 109 RPC.
A key issue before the High Court was whether the girl's testimony could be relied upon despite her speech impairment and alleged non-compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 119 of the Evidence Act.
The defence argued that her statement had not been videographed and questioned the reliability of the interpreter who assisted in recording it.
Rejecting the contention, the High Court noted that the girl was not deaf but had a speech impairment. It also observed that the trial court had wrongly categorised her as deaf and dumb.
Although the court acknowledged that her statement had not been videographed as required under the provision, it held that the appellants had failed to establish that the procedural lapse had caused prejudice or resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
The court further observed that the interpreter, Roshan Bhan, a school principal experienced in assisting hearing-impaired students, had been examined during the trial. It held that his role was limited to interpreting the victim's statement and that his non-availability for cross-examination did not warrant discarding her testimony.
The defence had also questioned the medical evidence, pointing out that the girl's medical examination, conducted three days after the incident, recorded an intact hymen, no visible genital injuries and no spermatozoa in vaginal slides.
The High Court held that the absence of spermatozoa after around 72 hours could not, by itself, disprove the allegation of sexual assault. It also considered the forensic report, which detected semen and human spermatozoa on the victim's trousers and blood stains on her trousers and shirt.
The court observed that the forensic findings supported the prosecution case and upheld the convictions of the two appellants while granting relief to the third accused for want of incriminating evidence.