Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

22. The prosecution, in order to prove the alleged guilt against accused has examined in all ten witness from PW.1 to PW.10.

23. PW.1-Afrozabanu, mother of victim has stated that victim is her daughter, one Shafi Mohammed is her husband. The accused was working in their flower stall since three years from the date of alleged incident, her other two children and her mother-in-law were in the house. Victim-PW.3 is a deaf and dumb girl and as on the date of alleged incident, she was aged about 16 years. The victim for her daily activities has been completely depending upon her mother i.e., PW.1. It is the evidence of PW.1 that on 26.10.2015 afternoon, she went to a canal for washing clothes and she returned at 8:00 p.m. As soon as she came to her house, the victim did not have her dinner and she was often going for attending her nature call. Hence, she enquired the victim, but she did not reveal any reasons. The victim continued the same activities for two days, therefore, PW.1 saw the person of victim and noticed a bite mark injury on the chest of the victim. Therefore, she enquired the victim, but she did not reveal the names of any person, but after 4-5 days, PW.1 by hand gestures showed names of four to five suspected names, for which, victim nodded her head as 'no', but while PW.1 showed by hand gesture the name of accused, the victim nodded her head as 'yes', who committed offence against her. Therefore, on 31.10.2015, PW.1 lodged the complaint as per Ex.P1. On the following day of the incident, the police took the victim to the hospital for medical examination and the police visited the scene of offence, they drew spot panchanama as per Ex.P3, took the photograph as per Ex.P2, enquired the witnesses and later took the victim to the Court for recording statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. PW.1 was subjected to a detailed cross-examination from the accused side. In her cross-examination, though several attempts were made to shake the credibility of her evidence given in her examination-in-chief, but the witness adhered to her original version.

24. PW.2-Sadhikh Ali, a witness to spot panchanama- Ex.P3, has stated that on 01.11.2015 at 10:00 a.m., the Women Police, Davanagere came to the scene of occurrence, where they drew spot panchanama in his presence as per Ex.P3.

25. PW3- the victim was examined through PW.4, the interpreter, through her signs and hand gestures before the court that, PW.1 is her mother and accused was working in flower stall of her father. She has given her evidence through signs and hand gestures, she showed her finger and kept in her mouth to a suggestion of a Special Public Prosecutor through interpreter, as to what happened to her by the accused. She also showed by signs that the accused scratched with his nails and caused bite marks on her chest. By her sign and gesture, she stated that on the day of the incident, her mother PW.1 had been to canal for washing of clothes. Her mother used to bathe her everyday. Her mother used to help her while she wore clothes. Soon after the incident, the victim told her mother about the act committed by the accused.

32. The evidence of PW.3-victim shows that she is dumb and deaf witness. According to the victim, she used to tell by making signs and hand gestures. She was knowing only the words (amma...., abba..... and bayya......). It is her evidence through signs and hand gestures that she showed her finger and kept in mouth to the suggestion of interpreter as to what happened to her by the accused. She also showed by signs that on her chest, the accused scratched with his nails and caused bite mark. The interpreter has not stated anything with regard to the sexual assault or penetrative sexual assault alleged to have been made by the accused against the victim nor the interpreter interprets in such a manner that the gestures made by the victim by showing her finger in her mouth means is penetrative sexual assault.

39. On the contrary, on perusal of the evidence of PW.3, the victim, PW.4-Interpreter, PW.1-mother of victim, PW.5-Aunt of victim and PW.8- Grand mother of victim, have in categorical terms have stated that the accused entered the house of victim, the accused touched her private organ, thereby sexually assaulted the victim, made nails marks on her chest and made bite marks with teeth on her chest. He also made criminal intimidation to finish her, if she reveals said fact to anybody. However, nothing worth is elicited by the accused to disbelieve the evidence of these witnesses with regard to the accused committing act of sexual assault by touching private organ of the victim-PW.3, caused injury on her chest with his nail and teeth. The accused has not elicited any ill-will as suggested by the defence between the accused and victim or her family members. The accused merely relied upon some minor contradictions appeared in the evidence of PW.1, 3, 5 and 8 to disbelieve their evidence, but, those contradictions will not go to the very root of the case.