In a significant ruling that reinforces the legal standing of persons with disabilities, a sessions court in Mumbai has sentenced a 35-year-old salon worker to ten years of rigorous imprisonment for the abduction and rape of a woman with a moderate intellectual disability in 2019. This marks a rare conviction under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
A Landmark Verdict Based on "Sterling" Testimony
Judge Surekha A Sinha, presiding over the case, delivered a powerful judgment, describing the survivor as a "sterling witness." The court relied heavily on a crucial Supreme Court observation that the testimony of a person with a disability cannot be deemed weak or inferior simply because they interact with the world differently. The judge found the accused guilty on multiple charges, including rape under the Indian Penal Code and Section 92(b) of the Disabilities Act for assaulting a person with disability. The sentences will run concurrently.
The court imposed a ten-year prison term for rape and an additional one-year sentence under the Disabilities Act. Judge Sinha emphasized that courts must treat the testimony of persons with disabilities with "utmost sensitivity" and that minor discrepancies cannot be used to discredit their account.
Chilling Details of the 2019 Assault
The horrific incident occurred on April 29, 2019, in Mumbai. According to the prosecution, the survivor's family had gone out to vote in the Lok Sabha elections. Upon returning, her mother realized the young woman was missing. The victim returned home shortly after, in a state of distress and tears, and revealed the assault.
She recounted that while playing in a nearby lane, the accused, a salon worker known to the neighborhood, caught her hand and forcibly took her to the mezzanine floor of his residence. There, he threatened her with a knife, gagged her using a pillow, and sexually assaulted her. In an attempt to destroy forensic evidence, the assailant then washed her with soap.
Medical and Psychiatric Evidence
Medical experts confirmed the victim had suffered physical trauma consistent with sexual assault. Psychiatrists who deposed before the court provided critical context, stating that while the woman was 25 years old physically, her social age was assessed to be around seven years and two months, with an IQ of 36, indicating a moderate intellectual disability.
Special Public Prosecutor Geeta Sharma examined 14 witnesses during the trial. While forensic reports were inconclusive—a fact the prosecution linked to the accused washing the victim—the combined weight of the survivor's testimony, medical evidence, and witness accounts proved decisive.
Court Rejects Defence, Upholds Survivor's Dignity
The defence argued the case was based on hearsay and pointed to minor inconsistencies in the testimony. Judge Sinha firmly rejected these claims, underscoring a progressive judicial approach.
The judgment stated, "Minor discrepancies and contradictions are not fatal to the case of prosecution. Courts cannot cling to a fossil formula and insist upon corroboration even if, taken as a whole, the case spoken of by the victim of sex crime strikes the judicial mind as probable."
This verdict is being hailed as a robust application of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act. It sends a strong message about the equal value of testimony from persons with disabilities and the judiciary's role in protecting some of the most vulnerable members of society from sexual violence.
