Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. In view of the allegations so made on behalf of the accused, I carefully scrutinized the evidence of PW 8 Nagnath Ippar. It is true that PW 8 Nagnath has deposed before the Court that the mother of the prosecutrix disclosed to him that rape was committed on her daughter by the accused. However, PW 8 Nagnath had immediately thereafter testified that on such disclosure made by the mother of the prosecutrix, he made an enquiry with the prosecutrix. He has further deposed that the prosecutrix narrated the facts orally as well as by signals. He did also state that the prosecutrix was stammering. PW 8 Nagnath has also deposed that he reduced into writing the oral report as per the say of the victim and her mother. I do not see any reason to disbelieve the facts as aforesaid deposed by PW 8 Nagnath.

15. The material on record shows that the prosecutrix was not deaf and dumb but was having some problem in her speech. The prosecutrix stammers while speaking. It cannot be accepted that the narration by a person who stammers while speaking may not be understood at all by a person to whom such narration is being made. A person who stammers may take some more time in communicating the facts but it cannot be accepted that the narration by such person would not be understood by any other person unless he is specially trained in that regard. It further cannot be ignored that PW 8 has also deposed that the prosecutrix narrated the contents by signals. It is a matter of common knowledge that even a totally dumb person also can convey the facts with the aid of signals.