SUNIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has laid a challenge to his conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court in Sessions trial No.2 of 2004 decided on 27/29.11.2004, whereby he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of ˜5,000/ -, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and three months, for attempted rape on the prosecutrix, aged about 16 years, who was deaf and dumb.

(2.) SHRI Ashwani Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant led me through the evidence on record and vehemently argued that the Compromise deed Ext.PW1/A is not worthy of credence at all as the alleged admission is neither voluntary nor signed by the accused of his own volition. Further that the statement of the prosecutrix was neither recorded by signs and gestures made by her before the Court with the aid of Shashi Bala, who claimed herself to be an expert in interpreting signs of deaf and dumb witness is of any consequence, as the prosecutrix was never her student nor she understood her signs as well. Even it is also not decipherable from the evidence as to how the questions were put to the prosecutrix and in what manner these were answered by the prosecutrix. Thus, relying upon such a statement has caused miscarriage of justice.

(3.) CONTRA , Shri P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence and further ventilated that the learned trial Court had adopted reasonable and proper method to ascertain the competency of the witnesses to depose in the court and such observations are duly recorded. Therefore, the statement is worth inspiring confidence causing no prejudice.