A Delhi court has convicted a man for attempting to rape a differently abled woman, relying on her mother's eyewitness account and a psychiatric assessment that indicated the survivor had a social age of one year and two months and suffered from profound social intellectual impairment.
Court Proceedings and Verdict
Additional Sessions Judge Amit Sehrawat held that the 18-year-old woman, who has hearing and speech impairments, was completely dependent on her mother and not competent to testify. The judge found the mother's testimony consistent and trustworthy, concluding that the prosecution had proven the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
Incident Details
According to the prosecution led by Aaditya Kumar, the incident occurred in April 2022 when the woman and her mother were sleeping outside their jhuggi. The mother woke up to the woman's screams and found the accused, Mohd Shaan, committing a wrong act on her. The man was arrested.
Defense Arguments Rejected
During the trial, the defense attempted to cast doubt by pointing to a six-hour delay in filing the complaint. The court rejected this contention, stating that it is a matter of ordinary prudence for family members to first console and settle a specially-abled child before reporting the incident.
Medical Assessment
The court took note of the woman's medical assessment by the Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences. The report stated that the woman had a social age of one year and two months, with a corresponding social quotient of 8, indicating profound intellectual impairment. Based on this, the woman was not made a witness.
Investigation Lapses
The defense cited the absence of independent witnesses. The court viewed this as a lapse in the investigation but emphasized that the reliability of the complainant cannot be decided merely on the basis of such lapses.
Accused's Defense Rejected
Mohd Shaan denied the allegations and claimed the case stemmed from a past quarrel. The court rejected this defense, stating that the reliability of a complainant cannot be doubted solely based on previous issues, and the defense needed to provide substantial proof, which was missing.
