IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Coram: The Hon’ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj And The Hon’ble Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra C.R.A. (DB) 2 of 2025 With CRAN 2 of 2025 Shri Gobinda Chakraborty -Vs- The State For the Appellant : Ms. Nazneen For the State : Mr. Sumit Karmakar For the Victim Girl : Mr. D. Ilango Reserved On : 18th June, 2026. Pronounced On : 25th August, 2026. Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.: 1. The appeal is directed against the judgement and an order passed by the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, North & Middle Andaman, Mayabunder, dated August 26, 2022 in Sessions Case No. 16 of 2021, convicting the appellant under Section 376(2)(1) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as „IPC‟) and sentencing him to suffer rigorous CRA (DB) 2 of 2025 -2- imprisonment for ten years for the offence punishable under section 376(2)(1) Indian Penal Code and also to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, out of which 90 per cent amount shall be paid to the victim as compensation under section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as „CrPC‟) and in case of default of payment the appellant shall have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year more. 2. The present case arises out of Billiground P.S. Case No. 24/2021 dated July 30, 2021, registered under Sections 376, 342, 323 and 506 IPC on the basis of a First Information Report (FIR) and a written complaint lodged by the victim (P.W.3), who is the de facto complainant in the matter. 3. It is the prosecution's case that the victim, a 21-year-old deaf and non- verbal woman residing at Swadesh Nagar, was repeatedly subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the appellant, who was serving as the priest of the local Kali Temple, during the months of January and February 2021. The appellant allegedly lured the victim inside the temple on several occasions, wrongfully confined her, committed forcible sexual intercourse and threatened her with dire consequences if she disclosed the incidents. Owing to such threats and her communication disability, the victim did not reveal the incidents immediately. Several months later, when she complained of abdominal pain and was taken to Mayabunder Hospital, medical examination revealed that she was approximately twenty-eight weeks pregnant. Upon being questioned by her mother, the victim disclosed that the appellant was responsible for her pregnancy, following which the present FIR came to be lodged. 4. During the course of investigation, the victim's statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC were recorded with the assistance of special educators. A Test Identification Parade was conducted, wherein the victim identified the appellant. The Investigating Officer also collected medical, documentary and forensic evidence, including a DNA report. Upon completion CRA (DB) 2 of 2025 -3- of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 5. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the Court of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, North & Middle Andaman, Mayabunder and registered as Sessions Case No. 16 of 2021, corresponding to Sessions Trial Case No. 14 of 2021. 6. Upon consideration of the case records and hearing both parties, the Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against the appellant under Section 376(2)(1) of the IPC. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. In the course of the trial, the prosecution examined eighteen (18) witnesses and produced several documents and material objects marked as Exhibits 1 to 20. The appellant did not lead any evidence in defence but was examined under Section 313 of CrPC. 8. Upon completion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, by judgment and order dated August 26, 2022, convicted and sentenced the appellant in accordance with law. 9. The Learned Counsel for the appellant has challenged the findings of the Learned Trial Court on multiple grounds, primarily highlighting inconsistencies in the prosecution‟s case and procedural lapses during investigation and trial. 10. It is submitted that key prosecution witnesses were not competent to render the vital interpretation and identification evidence on which the conviction is founded. The learned Sessions Judge, in convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(1) IPC by its judgment dated August 26, 2022 in Sessions Case No.16 of 2021, has failed to appreciate material infirmities in the prosecution case and therefore the conviction is legally unsustainable. CRA (DB) 2 of 2025 -4- 11. The prosecution‟s case depends critically upon the statements of the deaf victim (herein PW-3) as interpreted by two persons described in the record as special educators (PW-1 Abdul Wajid and PW-2 Rakhi Kabiraj). Both PW-1 and PW-2 admitted in cross-examination that they possess no recognised qualification in sign-language interpretation or special education, that they were not formally appointed in writing as interpreters and that they have “no standard qualification” to act as special educators. On their own evidence they are no better than members of the general public able to understand some gestures. The admitted absence of formal competence of the interpreters fatally undermines the reliability of the victim‟s trial testimony and of the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, which was taken through them. 12. The record further discloses that the judicial safeguards required when recording statements of a vulnerable witness were not observed. The learned magistrate who recorded the Section 164 statement has himself acknowledged that no enquiry was made or documented to ascertain the victim‟s mental capacity; no referral for mental assessment or IQ testing was made, despite material in the FIR and elsewhere indicating the victim was mentally challenged in addition to being deaf. The magistrate did not satisfy himself as to the competency of the interpreters, did not note the signs/gestures contemporaneously in the record, did not administer any oath to the interpreters or the witness and conceded that no videography or photography was undertaken during recording of the statement. These omissions are not mere formalities in cases involving persons with communication or cognitive disabilities, such safeguards are essential to ensure that the recorded statement truly represents the witness‟s words and is voluntary and reliable. 13. Material contradictions exist between the victim‟s Fardbayan, the Section 164 statement and the victim‟s deposition before the trial court. While the earlier statements describe forcible intercourse by the priest with threats of CRA (DB) 2 of 2025 -5- death, the victim in cross-examination before the trial admitted that she had a love affair with the accused. The trial depositions also refer ambiguously to a subsequent loss of the child, yet the prosecution failed to produce coherent medical or documentary proof of an aborted foetus. The investigating officer conceded absence of documentary proof such as a death certificate of the born baby and admitted unexplained delay and lacunae in collection and dispatch of medical material. Such contradictions and the absence of corroborative medical or documentary evidence generate substantial doubt as to whether the acts complained of were non-consensual assaults by the accused or arose out of other circumstances. 14. The identification evidence and Test Identification Parade (TIP) are similarly beset with procedural and substantive infirmities. The TIP was held inside the Correctional Home and those responsible for conducting and witnessing the parade (PW-12, PW-13, PW-14) admitted that names and features of persons in the row were not properly recorded, that signatures of the inmates were not obtained and that persons in the line up were not comparable to the accused in dress or appearance. PW-13 and PW-14 specifically stated that no person in the row had features or dresses similar to the accused. These omissions and the unsatisfactory conduct of the TIP render the identification unsafe as proof beyond reasonable doubt. 15. Medical evidence produced by the prosecution does not bridge these gaps. The medical officer who examined the victim conceded that no tests or specialist opinion were sought to determine intellectual disability and accepted that IQ testing is necessary to ascertain mental retardation. The doctor who examined the accused gave a bare opinion of sexual capability without specifying the means or standard of examination. The lack of clear medical corroboration particularly regarding pregnancy, abortion and timing of events CRA (DB) 2 of 2025 -6- weakens the prosecution‟s case and precludes reliance on medical proof to dispel the reasonable doubts arising from the other infirmities. 16. Numerous prosecution witnesses testified only to hearsay or to facts they had “come to learn” from the victim‟s family rather than from their own personal knowledge. Several relatives and neighbours (PW-5, PW-6, PW-8, PW-9, PW-10) conceded they had no personal knowledge of the alleged assault and had deposed on what they had been told by others. Such testimony cannot substitute for direct evidence of the occurrence of the offence alleged against the appellant. 17. The investigating officer‟s conduct and gaps in the investigation further weaken the prosecution‟s case. The IO conceded that the victim‟s statement was not video-recorded, that no permission was obtained from the court for certain forensic steps, that relevant documents were not seized from a health centre and that there was an unexplained delay of several months in important investigative steps. These omissions adversely affect the chain of custody and the credibility of the forensic and documentary material relied upon by the prosecution. 18. On the settled principle that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the cumulative effect of the foregoing infirmities is fatal to the case. Where the evidence of a vulnerable witness is recorded through unqualified interpreters, where no adequate enquiry into the witness‟s mental capacity is conducted, where contemporaneous safeguards such as videography and notation are absent, where identification procedures are defective and where material contradictions and lacunae in medical and forensic proof persist, the prosecution cannot be said to have discharged the burden of proof. The learned Sessions Judge‟s failure to scrutinise these infirmities and to give effect to the concessions elicited on cross-examination constitutes a material misappreciation of evidence. CRA (DB) 2 of 2025 -7- 19. For these reasons it is submitted that the judgment and order of conviction dated August 26, 2022 cannot be sustained. The conviction must be set aside and the be appellant acquitted, as the prosecution has not proved the charge under Section 376(2)(1) IPC beyond reasonable doubt. 20. The Learned Counsel appearing for the State submitted that the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge is based on clear direct and consistent evidence. It is submitted that the prosecution has established the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt, through the testimony of multiple witnesses, both direct and circumstantial, supported by medical and documentary evidence. 21. The Learned Counsel submits that the prosecution case originated from the disclosure made by the victim, a deaf and non-verbal girl, who alleged that the appellant had committed forcible sexual intercourse with her during the months of January and February, 2021. On the basis of her complaint, FIR No. 24 of 2021 dated July 30, 2021 was registered under Sections 376, 342, 323 and 506 of the IPC. It was argued that the appellant was subsequently arrested, a thorough investigation was conducted and upon completion thereof, a charge-sheet was submitted for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(i), 342, 323 and 506 IPC. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court framed charges against the appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 22. It is further submitted that, in order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined as many as eighteen witnesses, including the victim as PW-3 and proved several documentary and material exhibits marked as Exhibits 1 to 20. These documents included, inter alia, the written complaint of the victim, her statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, the medico- legal report, seizure lists, the victim's identity documents and disability certificate, the sketch map of the place of occurrence, Test Identification Parade documents, the CFSL/DNA report and the formal First Information Report. CRA (DB) 2 of 2025 -8- According to the Learned Counsel for the State, these documentary materials substantially reinforce the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses and establish the sequence of events narrated by the victim. 23. The learned Counsel emphasises that the testimony of the victim is natural, trustworthy and inspires confidence. It is contended that the victim consistently identified the appellant as the perpetrator and gave a detailed account of the sexual assault in her deposition before the Court, which remained in conformity with her written complaint as well as her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC. The victim stated that she had been taken to a temple where the appellant, along with the priest, humiliated her and forcibly pulled her inside the temple, following which the appellant subjected her to sexual assault. It was further submitted that the victim subsequently conceived as a consequence of the assault and gave birth to a female child, who unfortunately died thereafter. Learned Counsel argued that this version of the victim finds material corroboration from the testimony of other prosecution witnesses, particularly PW-4, the victim's mother, whose evidence lends assurance to the prosecution case. 24. The Learned Counsel further relied upon the CFSL/DNA report, marked as Exhibit 20, to submit that the scientific evidence conclusively establishes the appellant as the biological father of the female child born to the victim. This scientific evidence forms a crucial and unimpeachable link in the chain of circumstances and directly connects the appellant with the pregnancy resulting from the sexual assault. It is also submitted that the medico-legal evidence corroborates the fact of sexual activity and records injuries consistent with the version narrated by the victim. The prosecution further relied upon the evidence of the witnesses associated with the seizure process, the Test Identification Parade and the medical examination, whose testimonies, CRA (DB) 2 of 2025 -9- according to the State, remain consistent and lend further corroboration to the prosecution narrative. 25. It is submitted that the mere fact that the victim is deaf and non-verbal and has been certified as a person with disability cannot be a ground to discard or diminish the evidentiary value of her testimony. Learned Counsel submits that despite her disability, the victim gave a coherent, consistent and credible account of the occurrence and there is no legal principle that renders the testimony of a differently abled witness unreliable merely on account of such disability. On the contrary, it was contended that her evidence has remained steadfast throughout and has been duly corroborated by independent medical, documentary and scientific evidence. 26. The Learned Counsel for the State also submitted that the defence has failed to establish any plausible motive for false implication or any previous enmity between the parties which could justify a fabricated accusation of such a serious nature. It is further argued that no material contradiction, inconsistency or omission has been elicited in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses so as to discredit their testimony or create any reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution case. 27. On the strength of the cumulative oral, documentary and forensic evidence brought on record, Learned Counsel submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC along with the allied offences for which he stood charged. It has been, therefore, contended that the learned Trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective and correctly recorded the order of conviction and sentence. Accordingly, it submitted by the State that the appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence be affirmed. CRA (DB) 2 of 2025 -10- 28. We have heard learned Advocates for the parties and have gone through the evidence of record meticulously which reveals as follows: I. P.W.1, Shri Abdul Wajid, is a government servant posted as a Primary School Resource Teacher in the office of the Deputy Education Officer (DEO), Mayabunder. He deposed that on July 30, 2021, he was appointed by the DEO as a Special Educator to assist in the present case. Pursuant thereto, he went to Mayabunder Hospital where, at the request of the police, he interpreted the gestures of the victim during the recording of her statement. He stated that Rakhi Kabiraj (PW-2), who had also been appointed by the DEO, was present with him during the recording of the victim's statement before the police as well as before the learned Magistrate. He identified his signatures on both statements. He further deposed that the Test Identification Parade was conducted by the learned Magistrate in his presence, though he was unable to identify the concerned person before the Court. During cross-examination, P.W.1 admitted that he did not possess any formal qualification in sign language interpretation and that no written order appointing him as an interpreter had been issued to him. He further stated that the victim communicated the relevant facts through gestures despite not having knowledge of formal sign language and that she was capable of moving about independently. He denied the suggestions put to him by the defence that neither he nor Rakhi Kabiraj had been appointed by the DEO, that the victim's statements before the police and the learned Magistrate had been wrongly interpreted, that he was deposing falsely at the instance of the police or that the contents of the victim's statements were false. II. P.W.2, Rakhi Kabiraj, a government employee serving as a Block Resource Person for Children with Special Needs at the DEO Office, Mayabunder, deposed that on July 30, 2021, pursuant to a requisition CRA (DB) 2 of 2025 -11- made by the police and under the directions of the District Education Officer, she was deputed to Mayabunder Hospital to assist in recording the statement of the deaf victim. She stated that the victim‟s statement was recorded in her presence and in the presence of Abdul Wajid (PW1) through sign language and she affixed her signature to the recorded statement. She further deposed that the learned Magistrate also recorded the victim‟s statement in sign language in her presence and she signed the said statement as a witness. She additionally stated that she later accompanied the authorities to the Correctional Home for the purpose of identification, where the victim identified the accused, who was also identified by her in Court during her testimony. During cross-examination, P.W.2 admitted that she possessed no formal qualification or certification in sign language interpretation and had not received any written appointment as an interpreter. She stated that her understanding of sign language was at the level of that of an ordinary person and was unable to recall the exact dates on which she visited the hospital, the correctional home or appeared before the Magistrate. She further stated that approximately ten to eleven persons were present during the Test Identification Parade, though she could not specify the exact number. She admitted that she had affixed all her signatures while sitting at the police station but denied the suggestions that she had wrongly identified the accused, that the victim had not identified the accused in her presence during the Test Identification Parade, that she had never visited the relevant places or that she was deposing falsely. III. P.W.3, the victim in the present case, a 21-year-old unemployed woman residing at Pitchernallah. As the witness was unable to understand or communicate verbally, her evidence was recorded through sign language in the presence of two Special Educators being PW1 and PW2. In her examination-in-chief, she deposed that she had been called by the priest CRA (DB) 2 of 2025 -12- of the temple, who took her inside the temple, embraced her and subjected her to sexual intercourse, as a result of which she became pregnant. She further stated that the child subsequently died. The witness identified the accused in Court as Gobindo Chakraborthy and stated that she had narrated the incident to the police as well as to the learned Magistrate. During cross-examination, the victim admitted that she had a love affair with the accused and that she was capable of going to the market and purchasing grocery items by using hand signals. She stated that the incidents occurred inside the temple on several occasions and that she resided with her mother, brother, sister-in-law and their children. She deposed that although she informed her brother and sister-in-law about the incidents, no complaint was lodged by them and she did not disclose the matter to her mother because the accused had threatened to assault her. She denied the suggestions that she voluntarily visited the temple for her own pleasure, consumed or sold handia, that no forcible sexual intercourse had taken place or that she had falsely implicated the accused as part of a conspiracy to remove him from his position as priest. She also denied the suggestion that she had never become pregnant or that she had falsely identified the accused before the Court. IV. P.W.4, is the mother of the victim and a resident of Swadesh Nagar. She deposed that the victim, aged about 22 years, is her daughter. According to her, about four to five months after the alleged incident, the victim was taken to Mayabunder Hospital due to abdominal pain, where the doctor informed them that she was pregnant. Upon questioning her daughter about the pregnancy, the victim disclosed that, in her mother's absence, the priest of the temple, Gobindo, had called her to the temple and subjected her to sexual assault and that he was responsible for her pregnancy. PW-4 stated that she narrated these facts before the learned CRA (DB) 2 of 2025 -13- Magistrate, who recorded her statement, upon which she affixed her left thumb impression. She also stated that the police seized certain documents bearing her thumb impression. During her testimony, she identified the accused, Gobindo, in Court. During cross-examination, PW-4 described the location of her house in relation to the temple and nearby Panchayat office, stating that the temple remained frequented by devotees throughout the day and that Panchayat staff worked in the adjacent building. She admitted that the accused had been serving as the temple priest for about three years and that she and her daughter had known him during that period. She further stated that her daughter had never informed her about the incident before the pregnancy was detected, that she had never noticed any injuries or signs of fear, pain, or distress on her daughter despite caring for her daily and that the victim was almost always accompanied by family members. She denied the defence suggestions that her daughter was never pregnant, that her statements before the police and Magistrate were false, that she had tutored her daughter to depose falsely or identify the accused or that the case had been fabricated at the instance of the Panchayat authorities. She also denied being a habitual consumer of handia or deposing falsely, though she admitted that her son consumed and prepared handia at home. V. P.W.5, is the sister-in-law of the victim and deposes regarding the information she received concerning the victim's pregnancy. She states that about four to five months prior to her deposition, she came to know that the victim had become pregnant and that she had learnt that the priest of one Swadesh Nagar Kali Mandir was being held responsible for the pregnancy. During her testimony, she identified the accused present in Court. CRA (DB) 2 of 2025 -14- In her cross-examination, PW-5 clarifies that the victim is her sister-in- law and admits that all the facts deposed to by her were learnt from her mother-in-law. She candidly states that she has no personal knowledge of the incident and that her testimony is based entirely on what her mother- in-law had told her. She further states that the place of occurrence was situated in an open and visible area surrounded by many houses. She denies the suggestion that she is deposing falsely. VI. P.W.6, is the brother of the victim and a private labourer residing at Swadesh Nagar. In his deposition, he stated that the victim is his elder sister and that about four to five months prior to his examination, he came to know that she had become pregnant. He further stated that he learnt that the Pandit of the Swadesh Nagar Kali Mandir was responsible for her pregnancy. He identified the accused present in Court and proved his signature on a document, which was marked as Exhibit-3. During cross-examination, P.W.6 admitted that all the facts narrated by him had been learnt from his mother, Urmila Baniya, and that he had deposed in accordance with what she had told him. He candidly acknowledged that he had no personal knowledge of the incident. He further stated that the place of occurrence was situated in an open and visible area with many houses nearby. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely. VII. P.W.7, Shri Mani Kuttan Pillai, is a private driver residing at Swadesh Nagar under Billiground Police Station in the North and Middle Andaman District. In his deposition, he stated that he was acquainted with the victim and knew that she was mentally challenged. However, he deposed that he had no knowledge regarding the incident forming the subject matter of the case. He further stated that the police had only enquired from him regarding the destination of the priest. He affirmed that he CRA (DB) 2 of 2025 -15- knew the priest and identified the accused present in Court as the same priest. The defence declined to cross-examine the witness. VIII. P.W.8, is the brother of the victim. He deposed that the victim used to frequently visit the temple and the priest of the temple also used to visit their house. According to him, when the victim was taken to Mayabunder Hospital for a medical examination, it was discovered that she was pregnant and she held the accused priest responsible for the pregnancy. He identified the accused in Court. He further stated that the police seized the birth certificate in his presence and he identified his signature on the seizure list, which was marked as Exhibit-3/1. During cross-examination, PW-8 stated that he was not present when the police prepared the documents and that he had not been examined by the police. He described the layout of his house, stating that he, his mother and the victim resided in the middle room, while his brothers occupied the adjoining rooms. He stated that if a person were forcibly dragged from the house or the road in front of it, injuries and damage to clothing would ordinarily occur, but admitted that he had not seen any injuries on the victim's body. He further stated that he could not say whether the victim had undergone three abortions or whether all family members were aware of such facts, but confirmed that the victim was unable to move about independently or perform any work. He candidly admitted that he had never personally witnessed the accused committing any wrongful act with the victim. He denied the suggestions that the victim and the priest did not have visiting terms, clarified that the accused resided in a rented house at Swadesh Nagar while the temple was situated at Pitchernallah, and stated that he had no prior quarrel with the accused. He also admitted that he consumed and sold handia and that local Panchayat members used to visit his house for consuming handia and liquor. He denied the remaining defence suggestions that the victim had never CRA (DB) 2 of 2025 -16- become pregnant, that his testimony had been tutored by his mother, that he had falsely identified the accused or that he was deposing falsely. IX. P.W.9, Shri Radha Nath Majhi, a private employee and former Panchayat member of Swadesh Nagar, deposed that he knew the victim and had heard that she had become pregnant. According to him, the priest of the local temple was being held responsible for her pregnancy and he identified the accused priest in Court. His evidence was based on what he had heard regarding the incident rather than on any direct personal knowledge. During cross-examination, the witness admitted that the concrete road in the area was covered with moss, making it rugged, slippery and dangerous, also stated that a person being forcibly taken along such a road would likely sustain injuries. He denied the suggestion that he had falsely implicated the accused or that he harboured any personal enmity with the priest arising from disputes over salary or other issues. He stated that he had attended the meeting for the priest's appointment, where the priest was to receive a salary. He denied allegations that he and other Panchayat members had misappropriated the priest's salary or had falsely implicated him to avoid complaints. He further stated that the victim's family were settlers residing on allotted land and denied that they were encroachers or were residing on the land merely with the permission of the Panchayat. X. P.W.10, Shri Devobrotho Das, a private employee and resident of Swadesh Nagar, Police Station Billiground, North & Middle Andaman, deposed that he knew the victim and had heard that she had become pregnant. According to him, he had also heard that the priest of the temple, Gobindo Chakraborty, was responsible for the pregnancy and he identified the accused present in Court. He further stated that he had been serving as the Secretary of the temple committee since 2019 and CRA (DB) 2 of 2025 -17- that during the course of the investigation, the police had examined him and seized the details relating to Gobindo Chakraborty in his presence. During cross-examination, PW-10 stated that the temple priest was paid a salary, which was initially fixed at ₹5,000 per month in a committee meeting, although he could not recall the date of such meeting. He admitted that records regarding salary payments were maintained in a diary but that he had not supplied those records to the police. He denied the defence suggestion that the temple committee had withheld the priest's salary, misappropriated more than ₹2,00,000 belonging to the temple, and had falsely implicated the accused after he threatened legal action over non-payment of salary. He further denied that the victim and her mother had been used to fabricate the case or that the accused had no connection with the alleged offence. PW-10 stated that one Jayanto Nag and one Manoranjan Mondal were the Vice-President and President of the temple committee respectively since 2019, that committee records were maintained though not audited and that no such documents had been handed over to the police. He denied that the documents were withheld to conceal financial misappropriation by the committee. He also stated that he had informed the police that the committee had refrained from paying the priest's salary and had removed him from the temple. Finally, he denied the suggestions that the accused had been falsely implicated out of revenge, that the priest was not responsible for the victim's pregnancy or that he had falsely identified the accused in Court. XI. P.W.11, Dr. Hussana Sharon, was the Medical Officer posted at Mayabunder Hospital on July 30, 2021 and is examined to prove the medical examination of the victim and the related medical documents. She deposed that on the said date she medically examined the victim, who had been brought and identified by the police in connection with the present case. Upon examination, she found that the victim was 28 weeks CRA (DB) 2 of 2025 -18- pregnant and prepared the medical examination report, which was exhibited as Ext.-5. She further stated that the police seized the attested photocopy of the victim's urine test report under a seizure list bearing her signature, which was marked as Ext.-6 and identified the attested photocopy of the laboratory test report. During cross-examination, Dr. Sharon explained the standard protocols applicable to medico-legal cases, stating that both original and duplicate medical reports are prepared, with the original being forwarded to the Investigating Officer. She clarified that pregnancy cannot be confirmed without appropriate diagnostic tests such as a urine test, blood test or ultrasonography and admitted that she had not seen any ultrasonography report of the victim. She further stated that she had not conducted any examination or sought any specialist opinion regarding the victim's alleged intellectual disability, explaining that deafness and non-verbal status are distinct from mental incapabilities, for which an IQ assessment is necessary. She denied the suggestions that her opinion regarding pregnancy was based on assumptions, that her report was incorrect or incomplete, that it was prepared at the direction of the police or that she had not conducted a per-abdominal examination. She also stated that where a patient complains of abdominal pain for several months, it is the duty of the doctor to enquire about the menstrual history and prescribe appropriate pregnancy tests and that in the case of a deaf and non-verbal patient, the matter is required to be reported to the police. XII. P.W.12, Shri Vikramjit Sen, a member of the West Bengal Judicial Service and the then Judicial Magistrate First Class at Mayabunder, deposed that on August 02, 2021, pursuant to the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, he recorded the statement of the victim, under Section 164 CrPC in connection with Billiground P.S. Case No. 24 of CRA (DB) 2 of 2025 -19- 2021, registered under Sections 376/342/323/506 IPC. He stated that the statement was recorded in the presence of two Special Educators and the victim's mother, considering that the victim was deaf and non-verbal. On the same day, he also recorded the statement of the victim's mother, under Section 164 CrPC. He further deposed that on August 12, 2021, he conducted a Test Identification Parade (TIP) inside the Correctional Home, Mayabunder, in the presence of the Chief Head Warder, a Warder and the two Special Educators. During cross-examination, P.W.12 stated that during his judicial service he had recorded four or five statements of deaf and non-verbal victims with the assistance of Special Educators, though only one such victim was also intellectually disabled. He admitted that before recording the victim's statement he had perused the FIR, which disclosed that the victim was deaf, non-verbal and intellectually disabled. He further admitted that he neither referred the victim for mental assessment nor directed the Investigating Officer to obtain any certificate regarding mental retardation or IQ level. He stated that five persons, including himself, were present during the recording of the statement and that he had not verified the qualifications of the Special Educators produced by the Investigating Officer. He acknowledged that while he certified that the victim's gestures and signs had been interpreted by the Special Educators to the best of their ability, he had not recorded the actual signs made by the victim. He further stated that no oath was administered either to the victim or to the Special Educators, as he considered it unnecessary in the case of a deaf, non-verbal and intellectually disabled victim and admitted that no videography of the recording of the statement was undertaken. Regarding the Test Identification Parade, he stated that it was conducted in accordance with Section 54A CrPC, without videography or photography, with ten other CRA (DB) 2 of 2025 -20- inmates placed alongside the accused, whose signatures were not obtained. While acknowledging the general requirement that persons participating in a TIP should, as far as practicable, resemble the accused in height, appearance, dress and special features, he denied the suggestions that he had failed to comply with the legal requirements for conducting the TIP or that the report was contrary to law. XIII. P.W.13, Shri Mohd. Iqbal, is the Chief Head Warden of the District Correctional Home, Mayabunder. He deposed that on August 12, 2021, while serving in the same capacity, a Test Identification (TI) Parade was conducted inside the District Correctional Home in the presence of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mayabunder. He stated that he was present during the proceedings and signed the TI Parade document in token of his presence. During cross-examination, P.W.13 stated that he could not recall the names of the persons who were standing in the line during the TI Parade. He further deposed that the police had not recorded his statement in connection with the case. He also stated that no person in the identification parade row had features, dress or wearing apparel similar to those of accused Gobindo Chakraborty. XIV. P.W.14, Shri P. R. Praveen Kumar, was serving as the Warden of the District Correctional Home, Mayabunder at the relevant time. He deposed that on August 12, 2021, while posted in the same capacity, a Test Identification (T.I.) Parade was conducted inside the District Correctional Home, Mayabunder in the presence of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mayabunder. He stated that he was present during the proceedings and identified his signature on the T.I. Parade proceedings. During cross-examination, the witness stated that he could not recall the names of the persons who were standing in the row during the T.I. Parade. He further deposed that the police had not recorded his statement and that he had not been examined during the investigation. CRA (DB) 2 of 2025 -21- He also stated that no person in the identification parade row possessed features, dress or wearing apparel similar to those of accused Gobindo Chakraborty. The witness further stated that he knew the Investigating Officer, who was of Nicobaric origin and confirmed that she was present at the time of the T.I. Parade. XV. P.W.15, was the Station House Officer (SHO) of Billiground Police Station at the relevant time. He deposed that on July 30, 2021, while serving as SHO, he drew the formal First Information Report. He further stated that after the Investigating Officer completed the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet, he evaluated the same and forwarded it to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mayabunder. He also deposed that upon receiving information from SI Abdul Salam of Mayabunder Police Station regarding the incident of sexual assault, he directed SI Agnes Bartholoma, a woman police officer, to record the victim's statement in compliance with the legal requirement under Section 154 of the CrPC and subsequently entrusted her with the investigation, which she completed. Upon being recalled, PW-15 further deposed that on August 09, 2022 he received the DNA report in connection with the present case and thereafter submitted a supplementary charge-sheet after examining the report. During cross-examination, he admitted that he had no personal knowledge regarding the documents relating to the victim's abortion, the collection of the foetus or the manner in which the victim's blood sample was collected. He stated that the General Diary entry recording the information received from SI Abdul Salam had not been collected by the Investigating Officer and that Abdul Salam's statement did not form part of the charge-sheet. He reaffirmed that SI Agnes Bartholoma was the Investigating Officer, denied the suggestions that the charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheet had been forwarded without proper evaluation or that the materials had been sent to the Forensic Science CRA (DB) 2 of 2025 -22- Laboratory without following due procedure and stated that copies of the FIR and other relevant papers had been forwarded to the FSL. XVI. P.W.16, Dr. P.K. Palit, a government servant serving as the Medical Superintendent of RP Hospital, Mayabunder. He deposed that on August 05, 2021, he was posted in the same capacity at RP Hospital, Mayabunder. On that date, a requisition was received from the Investigating Officer seeking the case sheet of the victim in connection with FIR No. 24/2021 dated July 30, 2021, registered under Sections 376(2)/342/323/506 of the IPC. Upon receipt of the requisition, he forwarded the same to the Nursing Officer (In-charge) for necessary action. The witness was not cross-examined by the defence, as the opportunity for cross-examination was declined. XVII. P.W.17, Dr. Ajit Kumar, was the Chief Medical Officer (In-Charge) at Billiground Primary Health Centre at the relevant time. He deposed regarding the medical examination of the accused, Gobindo Chakraborty, conducted in connection with the present police case, as well as the collection of the accused's blood sample for forensic examination. According to his testimony, on August 03, 2021, while serving as Chief Medical Officer (I/C) at Billiground PHC, he examined the accused, Gobindo Chakraborty, who had been brought and identified by SI Agnes Bartholoma of Billiground Police Station. Upon examination, he found that the accused was physically capable of performing sexual intercourse. He proved the medical examination report prepared and signed by him with his official seal. He further stated that he collected the accused's blood sample on an FTA card and handed it over to the police, who seized it under a seizure list bearing his signature. During cross-examination, he admitted that he had not specified the details of the standard tests conducted to arrive at his conclusion regarding the accused's capability of sexual intercourse. He, however, maintained that he had found no CRA (DB) 2 of 2025 -23- abnormality indicating incapacity. He denied the suggestion that his medical report was incorrect or that it had been prepared under the influence of the police. XVIII. P.W.18, SI Agnes Bartholoma, was the Investigating Officer of the case, who deposed regarding the investigation conducted by her after the registration of Billiground P.S. Case No. 24/2021. She stated that on July 30, 2021, while posted as Sub-Inspector at Billiground Police Station, she was entrusted with the investigation of the case under Sections 376(2)(l), 342, 323 and 506 of the IPC. Before commencing the investigation, she recorded the statement of the victim in the presence of her mother and two Special Educators. During the course of investigation, she visited the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan (Ext. 13), arranged for the medical examination of the victim, seized the relevant medical documents under seizure list (Ext. 6/1), examined available witnesses and recorded their statements under Section 161 CrPC and arranged for the recording of the victim's statement under Section 164 CrPC. She further stated that she arrested the accused, arranged for his medical examination, seized his Aadhaar Card, Voter Identity Card and proof of residence (Ext. 14 collectively), verified the victim's birth certificate through the competent authority and obtained the verification report (Ext. 15 collectively), collected the victim's disability certificate under seizure list (Ext. 3/1), arranged for the Test Identification Parade, seized the accused's blood sample (Ext. 12/1) and upon completion of the investigation submitted the charge-sheet against accused Gobindo Chakraborty. She also seized the original disability-related documents of the victim, subsequently collected blood samples of the victim and her baby on FTA cards for DNA examination under seizure list (Ext. 19), forwarded the samples to CFSL, Pune and, since the report had not been received, submitted a CRA (DB) 2 of 2025 -24- supplementary charge-sheet pending the CFSL report. She identified the accused in Court. In her cross-examination, P.W. 18 admitted that she had recorded the victim's statement at RP Hospital, Mayabunder, in the presence of the Special Educators without any video recording and that the certificates regarding the qualifications of the interpreters were kept in the case diary but not filed along with the charge-sheet. She stated that she did not record the statement of SI Abdul Salam, did not collect records from Billiground PHC, did not examine the concerned doctors or staff and that the formal FIR did not explain the delay of more than six months in lodging the case. She further admitted that she had not obtained the potency test of the accused or the death certificate of the baby, that the accused had been shown to the victim before the Test Identification Parade, that the first charge-sheet did not contain the DNA reportand that there was no explanation in the case diary for the delay in sending the blood samples to CFSL or for not obtaining the report before filing the supplementary charge-sheet. She acknowledged that the CFSL report was vital for both the prosecution and the defence, but denied the suggestions that the investigation was unfair, perfunctory, influenced by others or deliberately conducted to falsely implicate the accused. 29. The pivotal question arising for determination in the present appeal is whether the conviction recorded by the Learned Trial Court suffers from such legal or evidentiary infirmities as would justify interference, particularly when the prosecution case rests upon the testimony of a deaf and non-verbal victim, duly corroborated by medical and scientific evidence culminating in a conclusive DNA report. 30. At the very outset, this Court finds that the most decisive circumstance establishing the guilt of the appellant is the CFSL DNA Report (Exhibit-20), CRA (DB) 2 of 2025 -25- which conclusively establishes that the appellant is the biological father of the child delivered by the victim. In prosecutions involving sexual assault resulting in pregnancy, scientific evidence assumes exceptional evidentiary value as it furnishes objective and impartial proof, independent of the frailties that may occasionally attend oral testimony. Unlike testimonial evidence, which may be subjected to criticism on account of memory, perception or communication barriers, DNA profiling constitutes a scientifically accepted mode of identification possessing a high degree of reliability and certainty. 31. The DNA report, therefore, constitutes a crucial and unimpeachable link in the chain of circumstances established by the prosecution. By scientifically proving the paternity of the child born to the victim, the report directly connects the appellant with the sexual intercourse that resulted in the pregnancy. This biological evidence lends complete corroboration to the consistent account furnished by the victim regarding the forcible sexual assault committed upon her by the appellant. Consequently, the various doubts sought to be raised by the defence concerning the absence of independent ocular witnesses, the alleged delay in disclosure or the chronology of the events pale into insignificance in the face of such conclusive forensic evidence. The appellant has failed to offer any plausible explanation for the biological findings reflected in Exhibit-20. His bald denial of the occurrence is rendered legally unsustainable in view of the scientific proof establishing his direct involvement. 32. In Santosh Kumar Singh v. State through CBI reported in (2010) 9 SCC 747, the Hon'ble Supreme Court recognised the decisive evidentiary value of DNA profiling in criminal trials and held that scientific evidence establishing the biological involvement of the accused constitutes a highly reliable circumstance completing the chain of evidence. The Court treated DNA evidence as objective scientific proof capable of providing strong corroboration to the prosecution case. The principle squarely applies to the present case, CRA (DB) 2 of 2025 -26- where the CFSL DNA Report (Exhibit-20) conclusively establishes the appellant as the biological father of the child born to the victim, thereby furnishing an unimpeachable scientific link connecting him with the offence. 33. Equally untenable is the challenge mounted by the appellant to the competency and credibility of the victim (PW-3). The victim is admittedly deaf and non-verbal. The defence has attempted to contend that she was also intellectually disabled and therefore, incapable of giving reliable evidence. Such contention cannot be accepted. Disability in communication cannot be equated with incompetency to testify. The law recognises that every witness is competent unless the Court finds that such person is incapable of understanding the questions put to him or her or of giving rational answers thereto. Merely because a witness communicates through gestures or signs does not diminish the evidentiary worth of such testimony. In M.P. Sharma & Ors. v. Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi & Ors. reported in AIR 1954 SC 300, it was held that: “17. …A person can “be a witness” not merely by giving oral evidence but also by producing documents or making intelligible gestures as in the case of a dumb witness (See Section 119 of the Evidence Act) or the like. 18. The object of enacting the provisions of Section 119 of the Evidence Act reveals that deaf and dumb persons were earlier contemplated in law as idiots. However, such a view has subsequently been changed for the reason that modern science revealed that persons affected with such calamities are generally found more intelligent, and to be susceptible to far higher culture than one was once supposed…” 34. Upon careful appreciation of the deposition of PW-3, this Court finds her evidence to be natural, trustworthy and wholly inspiring confidence. Throughout her examination, she consistently identified the appellant as the priest who enticed her into the temple premises and subjected her to repeated CRA (DB) 2 of 2025 -27- sexual assault. Her conduct during deposition reflected coherence and consistency. The evidence further reveals that she was capable of performing ordinary daily activities, including purchasing groceries through the use of hand gestures, thereby demonstrating adequate cognitive ability and comprehension. Her inability to report the offence immediately is satisfactorily explained by the threats extended by the appellant coupled with her communication disability. Such delayed disclosure, therefore, cannot be construed as a circumstance creating suspicion regarding the veracity of the prosecution case. 35. The challenge directed against the role of PW-1 and PW-2 as interpreters equally deserves rejection. The appellant has emphasised that neither witness possessed a formal certification in sign language and has consequently questioned the validity of the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC. This Court finds no substance in such objection. The evidence establishes that both PW-1 and PW-2 were government-appointed Special Educators and Block Resource Persons engaged in the education and welfare of children with special needs. Their practical experience in communicating with persons suffering from hearing and speech disabilities adequately equipped them to facilitate communication between the victim and the investigating authorities. 36. The object of interpretation is to accurately bridge the communication barrier so that the witness is enabled to convey the truth before the Court. The absence of a recognised academic qualification in sign language cannot per se invalidate the process of interpretation when the interpreters possess demonstrable practical experience and there is nothing on record to suggest any bias, manipulation or mistranslation. The victim communicated through gestures, which were interpreted by PW-1 and PW-2. Under the directions of the District Education officer. More importantly, the substance of the victim's CRA (DB) 2 of 2025 -28- testimony stands independently corroborated by medical findings and the conclusive DNA evidence. Consequently, the objection raised by the defence is merely hyper-technical and does not affect the intrinsic reliability of the prosecution case. 37. The testimony of the victim further receives substantial corroboration from the remaining prosecution evidence. PW-4, the mother of the victim, consistently narrated the circumstances under which the pregnancy came to light when the victim was taken to the hospital for abdominal pain. She further deposed regarding the victim identifying the appellant as the perpetrator. Her testimony is natural, consistent and wholly compatible with the prosecution narrative. 38. The medical evidence equally strengthens the prosecution case. PW-11, Dr. Hussana Sharon, medically examined the victim and confirmed that she was carrying a pregnancy of approximately twenty-eight weeks as on July 30, 2021. The medical findings thus provide the physical substratum upon which the charge of rape rests. Additionally, PW-17, the Chief Medical Officer, examined the appellant and categorically opined that he was physically capable of performing sexual intercourse, thereby negativing any suggestion regarding physical incapacity. 39. The defence has sought to discredit the prosecution by pointing out that certain witnesses, namely PW-5, PW-6, PW-8 and PW-9, deposed on the basis of information received from others. Such criticism overlooks the limited purpose for which their evidence was relied upon. These witnesses were not examined to establish the act of sexual assault itself but to demonstrate the consistency with which the victim disclosed the identity of the perpetrator to her family members and the community after her pregnancy became evident. Their evidence, therefore, serves as corroborative material supporting the prosecution version. CRA (DB) 2 of 2025 -29- 40. The appellant has further relied upon several alleged procedural deficiencies in the investigation, namely the absence of a formal IQ assessment of the victim, certain irregularities in the Test Identification Parade, the absence of videography during the recording of the statement under Section 164 CrPC and the non-production of the death certificate relating to the child who died after birth. While it cannot be disputed that certain omissions occurred during the course of investigation, this Court is unable to hold that such lapses strike at the root of the prosecution case. 41. It is well settled that defects or imperfections in investigation cannot, by themselves, become a ground for acquittal where the substantive evidence adduced before the Court otherwise establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The omission on the part of the Investigating Officer (PW-18) to videograph the statements or to obtain the infant's death certificate may amount to investigative lapses, however, such omissions do not disrupt the chain of evidence nor do they dilute the conclusive scientific findings reflected in the DNA report. Similarly, minor irregularities in the conduct of the Test Identification Parade lose much of their significance once the identity and involvement of the appellant stand scientifically established through DNA profiling. The prosecution case cannot be discarded merely because every conceivable procedural safeguard was not meticulously followed, particularly where the core facts stand conclusively proved by reliable oral, medical and scientific evidence. 42. The defence has also attempted to suggest that the prosecution was motivated by a conspiracy allegedly orchestrated by members of the Panchayat for the purpose of removing the appellant from his position as priest. This plea is wholly unsupported by any substantive evidence. No material has been produced to establish previous animosity or any plausible motive which could lead the victim and her mother to falsely implicate the appellant in an CRA (DB) 2 of 2025 -30- accusation of such grave nature. The allegation remains a bare suggestion devoid of evidentiary foundation and is therefore rejected. 43. Accordingly, this Court holds that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge under Section 376(2)(l) of the IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Moreover, where scientific evidence in the form of a duly proved DNA report conclusively establishes the biological fatherhood of the accused in a prosecution arising out of rape resulting in pregnancy, such evidence constitutes the highest and most reliable form of corroboration, directly connecting the accused with the commission of the offence. When such scientific proof is read conjointly with the credible and trustworthy testimony of a vulnerable witness, supported by consistent medical and circumstantial evidence, minor procedural irregularities in investigation, defects in the Test Identification Parade, absence of videography or other ancillary omissions do not create reasonable doubt sufficient to dislodge the prosecution case. 44. The Learned Additional Sessions Judge has correctly appreciated the oral, medical and scientific evidence in its proper perspective. The conviction is founded upon cogent, reliable and legally admissible evidence which inspires complete confidence and calls for no interference by this Court. 45. The appeal is, therefore, devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant. 46. Copy of the judgement along with Lower Court Records shall be sent back to the trial court at once for necessary compliance. 47. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all requisite legal formalities. [Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.] [Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J]