1
CRL. APPEAL @ SLP(CRL.)NO.2172 OF 2014
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1820 of 2017
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No.2172 of 2014)
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Appellant(s)
VERSUS
BANDU @ DAULAT Respondent(s)
ORDER
1. Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
2. The respondent was tried and convicted under Section
376 I.P.C. by the trial court for the alleged offence of rape
committed on 29th June, 2008 but has been acquitted by the
High Court.
3. The victim is deaf and dumb and mentally challenged to
some extent. Main evidence on record is of PW-1, Asha
Ramratan Bangar @ Asha Panchu Dhurve, the mother of the
victim. She lodged FIR on the next day i.e. 30 th June, 2008 to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
MAHABIR SINGH
Date: 2017.10.28
12:31:19 IST
the effect that the accused was the landlord of the house in
Reason:
which they were living. The victim was lured away by the
accused by offering some sweet meat and was taken to the
2CRL. APPEAL @ SLP(CRL.)NO.2172 OF 2014
market. She did not return home and it was at 9.30 p.m. in the
night that two boys brought her home. The victim explained to
her mother by gesture as to what happened. On this version,
FIR was registered and investigation was carried out. Medical
examination of the victim confirmed the commission of rape.
The age of the victim at the time of the commission of the
offence was about 14 years.
4. The High Court held that since the victim herself was not
examined, the factum of rape and involvement of the accused
could not be held to have been proved. This is the basis of the
order of the High Court.
5. Mr. Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, learned counsel for the
State, submitted that even though the victim may be the best
witness to establish the charge of rape, having regard to the
fact that the victim in the present case was deaf and dumb and
mentally retarded, even in absence of her being examined as a
witness, there was sufficient evidence warranting conviction of
the accused.
6. Though respondent was served, he has not put in
appearance in this Court. We requested Ms. Shirin Khajuria,
Advocate, to assist the Court as Amicus. Accordingly Ms.
Khajuria assisted the Court after thorough preparation. We
3
CRL. APPEAL @ SLP(CRL.)NO.2172 OF 2014
record our appreciation for Ms. Khajuria for painstaking
assistance.
7. The evidence of the mother of the victim clearly shows
that it was the respondent-accused who took away the victim.
The victim and the accused were seen together by PW-2,
Gajanan Marutrao Sonule on the date of commission of offence.
The victim immediately after the occurrence narrated the same
to her mother as to what happened as reflected in the FIR and
the version of the PW-1. Rape has been confirmed by medical
evidence. Identity of accused is not in dispute. In these
circumstances the trial court having convicted the respondent,
the High Court was not justified in setting aside the conviction.
8. Accordingly, we restore conviction of the respondent
under Section 376 IPC and sentence him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for seven years. He may be taken into custody
to serve out the remaining sentence.
9. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
10. Before parting with this order we may deal with the
suggestion of learned amicus that there should be special
centres for examination of vulnerable witnesses in criminal
cases in the interest of conducive environment in Court so as to
encourage a vulnerable victim to make a statement. Such
4
CRL. APPEAL @ SLP(CRL.)NO.2172 OF 2014
centres ought to be set up with all necessary safeguards. Our
attention has been drawn to guidelines issued by the Delhi
High Court for recording evidence of vulnerable witnesses in
criminal matters and also the fact that four special centres
have been set up at Delhi for the purpose.
11. We find merit in the above suggestion. In Sakshi v.
Union of India and Ors (2004) 5 SCC 518 this Court, after
due consideration of the above issue, issued following
directions:
“(1) The provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 327
Cr.PC shall, in addition to the offences mentioned in
the sub-section, also apply in inquiry or trial of
offences under Sections 354 and 377 IPC.(2) In holding trial of child sex abuse or rape:
(i) a screen or some such arrangements may
be made where the victim or witnesses (who
may be equally vulnerable like the victim) do
not see the body or face of the accused;
(ii) the questions put in cross-examination on
behalf of the accused, insofar as they relate
directly to the incident, should be given in
writing to the presiding officer of the court
who may put them to the victim or witnesses
in a language which is clear and is not
embarrassing;
(iii) the victim of child abuse or rape, while
giving testimony in court, should be allowed
sufficient breaks as and when required.
These directions are in addition to those given in
State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC
384.”
5CRL. APPEAL @ SLP(CRL.)NO.2172 OF 2014
12. The directions of Delhi High Court and setting up of
special centres for vulnerable witnesses as noted above are
consistent with the decision of this Court and supplement the
same. We are of the view that all High Courts can adopt such
guidelines if the same have not yet been adopted with such
modifications as may be deemed necessary. Setting up of one
centre for vulnerable witnesses may be perhaps required
almost in every district in the country. All the High Courts may
take appropriate steps in this direction in due course in phases.
At least two such centres in the jurisdiction of each High Court
may be set up within three months from today. Thereafter,
more such centres may be set up as per decision of the High
Courts.
A copy of this order be sent to all the High Courts for
necessary action.
……………………………..J.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
…………………………..J.
(UDAY UMESH LALIT)
New Delhi,
October 24, 2017.
