Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Tiofilo Evangelio Moraes @ Mories, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Margao in Sessions Case No.20/2013 for an offence punishable under Section 376(2)(l) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years. Aggrieved, he filed the present appeal before the High Court of Bombay at Goa. The prosecutrix, aged about 43 years, was a mentally retarded woman under medication at the Institute of Psychiatry and Human Behaviour (IPHB), Bambolim. The appellant, her godfather, was about 75 years old at the time of the incident. On 23/06/2013, at around 11:30 hrs., the prosecutrix went to collect coconuts in a nearby plantation. The appellant intercepted her and forcibly committed sexual intercourse. The incident was witnessed by PW3 Jose Moura, the prosecutrix's cousin and a close friend of the appellant. The prosecutrix remained sad for about a week, prompting her sister PW1 Magdeline Moura to inquire. Upon learning of the rape, PW1 discussed with relatives and reported the matter to the police. A crime bearing No.39/2013 under Sections 376 and 506 IPC was registered. Investigation was conducted by PW9 Vinayak Patil, who referred the prosecutrix for medical examination and IQ testing, drew a scene of offence panchanama, recorded statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and sent samples for chemical analysis. The trial court convicted the appellant. The High Court considered the evidence, including the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW2), her sister (PW1), the eyewitness (PW3), and medical experts. The court found the prosecutrix's testimony credible despite her mental disability, as it was corroborated by PW3 and medical evidence. The defence argued that the appellant was falsely implicated due to a land dispute, but the court rejected this, noting that PW3 was a close friend of the appellant and had no reason to lie. The court also noted that the appellant's age and relationship as godfather did not negate the offence. The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence, finding no grounds for interference.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape of Mentally Retarded Woman - Section 376(2)(l) IPC - Conviction - The appellant, godfather of the prosecutrix, was convicted for rape of a 43-year-old mentally retarded woman. The court upheld the conviction relying on the testimony of the prosecutrix, corroborated by eyewitness PW3 and medical evidence, and rejected the defence of false implication. Held that the evidence of a mentally disabled victim is credible if it inspires confidence and is corroborated (Paras 1-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 376(2)(l) IPC for rape of a mentally retarded woman is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment under Section 376(2)(l) IPC.
Law Points
- Rape of mentally retarded woman
- Section 376(2)(l) IPC
- credibility of mentally disabled prosecutrix
- corroboration of testimony
- eyewitness account
- medical evidence
- sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment
