SAMPATH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a sordid story of a poor girl who was aged 15 years at the time of incident and who was also a differently abled person both deaf and dumb, who was raped on the fateful day and her modesty was outraged. When the case comes up before the Court for trial, her own father and mother turned hostile by denying the incident and the victim herself who clearly explains the incident during her chief examination by sign language, after 6 days when she was cross examined, denies the whole incident. This is a pathetic state of affairs that prevails in remote and small villages where a victim who has been subjected to rape or attempted to be raped, retract the very incident itself by means of pressure exerted on her and her family or fearing future repercussions. We are living in such peculiar state of affairs where more than the accused, it is the victim who fears getting exposed to the outside world, consequent to the dastardly crime of rape. Keeping this in mind the parliament stepped in the year 2013 and brought an amendment to Section 164 Cr.P.C. Wherein, Sub Section 5-A was inserted, making it mandatory for the police to immediately take the victim to the Magistrate for the purpose of recording her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C and the proviso to the Sub Section specifically provides that when such statement is made by a person who is temporarily or permanently, mentally or physically disabled to be video-graphed and the statement shall be considered as a statement in lieu of examination in chief, such that, the maker of the statement can be cross examined on such statements, without the need for recording the same at the time of trial.

(2.) Brief facts of the prosecution case:-

(3.) The prosecution examined PW1 to PW12 as witnesses and marked Exhibits P1 to P18 and MO1 to MO7, in order to substantiate the case.