Madras High Court orders ₹5 lakh compensation to mentally challenged rape victim

The Madras High Court recently directed enhanced payment of ₹5 lakh as compensation to a mentally challenged woman, who the Court found had been mercilessly subjected to violent sexual abuse. .A Bench of Justices PN Prakash and RN Manjula passed the order while confirming a 2018 trial court order of conviction in the rape case. ."It is a pitiable case of a partially retarded woman who was mercilessly subjected to a violent sexual abuse. Her mother was already bedridden due to paralysis. A few years ago, her parents married the victim to a person who deserted her within 6 months of the marriage ... The accused had committed the sexual offence on a helpless woman who does not have self- standing and maturity to save herself. He also injured her," the Court found..The victim was a helpless woman and one could not have expected her to overpower the accused by showing strong physical resistance either, the Court added..The High Court, therefore, enhanced the compensation payable to the victim from the ₹3 lakh ordered earlier by the trial court to ₹5 lakh. .The matter dated back to 2014 when the victim was allegedly taken away from near her house, pushed inside a nearby godown and forcibly raped by the accused man. .The victim is stated to have been spotted shortly after the incident in a disheveled state by a neighbour. The victim's father later took her to the hospital after he found her bleeding. She was treated at the hospital for ten days, the Court was told. A medical examination revealed lacerated injuries on her private parts and the same required sutures, it was further submitted. .The accused contended that since the victim was suffering from mental retardation, no credence could be attached to her statement. The Bench, however, did not accept this submission. The Court noted that although the victim was found to be moderately retarded, the doctor has stated that she could understand questions put to her and respond, albeit slowly. .In view of this, the Court did not factor in minor discrepancies in her statements before the trial court either while arriving at its conclusion. ."When she was asked whether she did not resist the occurrence, she said ‘Yes’ and immediately thereafter she said ‘No’. These answers of the victim cannot be taken as a serious contradiction for the simple reason of her partial retardation. As it is pointed out by the doctor, she had grasped the questions slowly and delivered the answers slowly. Such kind of stammering or blonde moments in the evidence of a person like the victim cannot be considered as a serious or material contradiction. The victim had understood what had happened to her and narrated it in her chief in a language understandable to everyone. When she was grilled in the cross examination, it is quite natural for her to become nervous and pick up the questions slowly," the Court reasoned. .The Bench went on to emphasise that in sexual offences, the oral testimony of the victim is sufficient to inspire confidence in the mind of the Court with regard to the offence of rape. ."Once the Court is convinced that the evidence of the victim is acceptable, it is not necessary to look for corroboration. The evidence of a sexual victim should be considered as the evidence of an injured witness and it assumes a greater significance ... In this case, even when there is no need for corroborative evidence, the medical evidence amply corroborates the evidence of the victim," the Court said. .The Bench went on to confirm the trial court's conviction in the matter and dismissed the appeal filed by the accused. ."Neither the victim nor her parents had any motive against the accused to falsely implicate him in this case and that too, by alleging that the victim was raped. The evidence of the victim and other witnesses along with medical evidence prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt," the Court said. .Advocate N Manokaran appeared for the appellant. Additional Public Prosecutor M Babu Muthu Meeran appeared for the State. .[Read Judgment]