Judgment ( 1. ) APPELLANT has preferred this appeal challenging his conviction and order of sentence passed by Additional sessions Judge, Multai, District Betul in S. T. No. 81/94 vide judgment dated 29. 9. 94. ( 2. ) APPELLANT has been convicted under Section 450 and 376 of IPC for committing rape on a minor and mentally challenged girl aged about twelve years (hereinafter referred to as victim) in her house at village Joulkheda and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs. 200/- and to rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs. 300/- respectively, by the impugned judgment. Both the sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. ( 3. ) ACCORDING to prosecution, on 18. 2. 94 about 3 oclock in the noon, at village Joulkheda, when the victim was alone in her house, her parents and sister having gone to their field, appellant came inside the house and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. On hearing her screams, several women in the vicinity witnessed the appellant coming out from the house of the victim; they also noticed that the victim was bleeding and her clothes and underwear were stained with blood. When her sister munni Bai was back to house at 6 oclock in the evening, she came to know of the incident and went to Police Station, multai to lodge the FIR. On the basis of FIR lodged by Munni bai, an offence was registered against the appellant and was investigated. The victim was sent for medical examination. On being arrested, appellant was also sent for medical examination. The vaginal slide, blood stained frock and underwear of the victim and underwear of the appellant collected during their medical examination were seized by the Police and sent for forensic examination. After due investigation, appellant was prosecuted and put to trial for the offences under Section 450 and 376 of IPC. ( 4. ) APPELLANT abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication due to enmity. ( 5. ) LEARNED Additional Sessions Judge, after trial and upon appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, found the appellant guilty for the offences under Section 450 and 376 of IPC, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid by the impugned judgment, which has been challenged in this appeal. ( 6. ( 5. ) LEARNED Additional Sessions Judge, after trial and upon appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, found the appellant guilty for the offences under Section 450 and 376 of IPC, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid by the impugned judgment, which has been challenged in this appeal. ( 6. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial court erroneously convicted the appellant, though there was no legal evidence on record that the appellant committed rape on the victim girl. ( 7. ) LEARNED counsel for the State, on the other hand, justified and supported the conviction of the appellant. ( 8. ) PERUSED the evidence on record. It is clearly borne out from the medical evidence coupled with other evidence that the victim girl was sexually assaulted. Dr. A. Khan (P. W-8), the Woman Assistant Surgeon, Primary health Centre, Multai, who medically examined the victim girl on the same day on 18. 2. 94 at 10. 30 P. M. , found as under:- "examination of perineum : Stained with bood, hymen tear at 6 and 9 o clock present, blood oozes on touch, painful, fresh, laceration of the fourchette (at junction of both labia minora) present about cm x cm bleeding present. Cut gut stitch applied under L. A. Vagina admits little finger tightly. " ( 9. ) IN the opinion of Dr. A. Khan (P. W-8), there was possibility of recent intercourse with the girl, her vaginal smear slide was also prepared for confirmation. The vaginal smear slide of the victim and her blood stained underwear and frock were sealed by Dr. A. Khan (P. W-8) and handed over to the Police for forensic examination. The FSL report (Ex. P-5) also indicated that the blood, semen and sperms were found on the vaginal slide, frock and underwear of the victim. Dr. A. Khan (P. W-8) was extensively cross-examined, but she denied the suggestion that rupture of hymen of the girl could be caused by inserting any pointed object. She further stated that forensic report (Ex. P-5) had confirmed that sexual intercourse was committed with the victim girl. There are no reasons to doubt or discard the evidence of Dr. A. Khan (P. W-8 ). ( 10. She further stated that forensic report (Ex. P-5) had confirmed that sexual intercourse was committed with the victim girl. There are no reasons to doubt or discard the evidence of Dr. A. Khan (P. W-8 ). ( 10. ) THE evidence of the victim (P. W-3) coupled with the evidence of her sister Munni Bai (P. W-1), who lodged the fir, Kapoora Bai (P. W-2) and Leela Bai (P. W-4) indicated that the victim girl was ravished by the appellant. The evidence of the victim (P. W-3) was recorded in the question-answer form, as she appeared to be mentally challenged girl and unable to speak properly. The answers given by the victim (P. W-3) to questions no. 1, 6 and 7 vocally and by signs, however, indicated that appellant Munna had sexually assaulted her. ( 11. ) IT is also reflected from the testimony of Munni bai (P. W-1) that when she was back home about 6 oclock in the evening, she found that her sister (victim) had blood on her legs, private part and her underwear. According to munni Bai (PW-1), on enquiring, her sister (the victim, PW-3)had taken the name of the appellant. As per the evidence of munni Bai (P. W-1), Kapoora Bai (P. W-2) and Leela Bai (P. W-4) also had informed her that on hearing the screams of the victim, they had seen the appellant running out from her house. Such evidence is admissible under Section 157 of the Evidence Act. ( 12. ) KAPOORA Bai (P. W-2) and Leela Bai (P. W-4) also corroborated this fact that around 5 oclock in the evening, they heard the screams of the victim and then they saw that appellant was coming out from the house of the victim and rushing away. According to these two witnesses, the victim also came out after the appellant and she was crying and had blood on her legs and clothes. ( 13. ) LEANED counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that the evidence of Dr. According to these two witnesses, the victim also came out after the appellant and she was crying and had blood on her legs and clothes. ( 13. ) LEANED counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that the evidence of Dr. A. Khan (P. W-8), as given in para 2 of her deposition as well as note appended by the trial court in the deposition of the victim (P. W-3), indicates that victim girl (P. W-3) was mentally challenged girl and unable to speak properly and her evidence by itself did not establish the guilt of the appellant, plus the evidence of the other witnesses was also inconsistent, and contradictory to their police statement. Learned counsel for the appellant placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Varkey Joseph V. State of Kerala reported in AIR 1993 SC 1892 submitted that the evidence of the prosecutrix was based on leading questions, which could not be legally acted upon. ( 14. ) NO doubt some leading questions were put to the victim (P. W-3), but as also pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant, a note was appended in the deposition of the victim (P. W-3) that the witness appeared to be mentally challenged and was not able to speak properly, as such her evidence could be recorded only in the manner in which it was done. The evidence of Dr. A. Khan (P. W-8) also revealed that the victim was not able to speak and answer the questions properly. In this view of the matter, if the trial court permitted the leading questions being put to the victim (P. W-3) in chief examination, it could not be said that the discretion was exercised illegally in the facts and circumstances of the case, when the examination of the victim (P. W-3) was not otherwise possible and leading questions in her chief examination were also not objected to by the defence counsel, as is apparent from the record. Needless to say that even a mentally challenged person is competent to testify under Section 118 of the Evidence Act unless such person is prevented from understanding the questions put to him, or from giving rational answers by reason of mental deficiency. Needless to say that even a mentally challenged person is competent to testify under Section 118 of the Evidence Act unless such person is prevented from understanding the questions put to him, or from giving rational answers by reason of mental deficiency. Similarly, under Section 119 of the Evidence Act even a dumb witness can give the evidence by writing or by signs made in the open Court and evidence so given is to be deemed as oral evidence. ( 15. ) IN the instant case, a perusal of the evidence of the victim (P. W-3) reveals that she answered some questions orally and some questions by way of signs and indications. The entire evidence of the victim shows that somehow she has answered number of questions put to her. It could not, therefore, be said that she was unable to understand the questions and answer them rationally. The mere fact that she remained quiet on some questions put to her in cross-examination could not, in absence of any medical certification, lead to an inference that she was unable to understand the questions and answer them rationally. The evidence of the victim (P. W-3), therefore, cannot be discarded on these scores. The citations referred to by learned counsel for the appellant relating to the evidence of child witness, as reported in AIR 2004 SC page 4961 (Orsu Venkat Rao V. State of Andhra Pradesh), air 1994 SC page 454 (Chhagan Dame V. State of gujarat), AIR 1994 SC page 1068 (Arbind Singh V. State of Bihar), AIR 2004 SC page 3211 (Abdul Wahid v. State of Rajasthan), 2003 (3) SCC page 51 (Zafar V. State of U. P.), having turned on different facts, are of no avail to the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, where the victim girl was aged about 12-13 years. ( 16. ) ON over all consideration of the evidence of the victim (P. W-3) and in view of the answers given by her, particularly to questions no. 1, 6 and 7, which also stood duly corroborated by medical evidence, it could be safely concluded that it was the appellant, who sexually violated her. ( 17. ( 16. ) ON over all consideration of the evidence of the victim (P. W-3) and in view of the answers given by her, particularly to questions no. 1, 6 and 7, which also stood duly corroborated by medical evidence, it could be safely concluded that it was the appellant, who sexually violated her. ( 17. ) MOREOVER, the evidence of Kapoora Bai (P. W-2)and Leela Bai (P. W-4) also clearly reveals that on hearing the screams of the victim, they had seen the appellant rushing out from the house of the victim (P. W-3) followed by the victim herself weeping and crying, having blood on her legs and clothes. The omissions, contradictions brought forth in their evidence are not such so as to doubt and dislodge their version that appellant was seen running from the house of the victim after her screams and the victim was also seen coming out weeping and bleeding thereafter. ( 18. ) THE evidence of Munni Bai (P. W-1) also does not suffer from any such infirmity so as to discredit her version. More so, Munni Bai (P. W-1), the sister of the victim, was not present at the time of occurrence. She learnt of the incident when she came back home and when she found that her sister (the victim) was bleeding through vagina and had blood on her clothes, she lodged the FIR (Ex. P-1 ). The evidence of Munni Bai (P. W-1) clearly reveals that the victim (P. W-3) was alone in the house in the day time, other family members having gone to the field and the children having gone to the school. Her evidence also indicated that the victim (P. W-3) had named the appellant as the offender. Her evidence also goes to show that the age of the victim (P. W-3) was 12-13 years of age, which also remained unchallenged in the cross-examination. The FIR lodged by munni Bai (P. W-1) soon after the incident also substantiates her version ( 19. ) APPELLANT was admittedly cousin brother of the victim from maternal side, therefore, it does not appeal to reason that the victim (P. W-3) or her sister Munni Bai (P. W-1) would falsely implicate him. The evidence of appellants wife Mamta Pawar (D. W-1) regarding false implication of the appellant was rightly rejected as an after thought by the trial court. ( 20. The evidence of appellants wife Mamta Pawar (D. W-1) regarding false implication of the appellant was rightly rejected as an after thought by the trial court. ( 20. ) THUS, it could be safely concluded from the evidence of the victim (P. W-3) coupled with the medical evidence and the evidence of Kapoora Bai (P. W-2), Leela Bai (P. W-4) and Munni Bai (P. W-1) that it was the appellant, who sexually violated the victim aged about 12-13 years when she was alone at her house and thereby committed rape on her. ( 21. ) IN the wake of foregoing discussion, the conviction of the appellant, as recorded by the trial court under Section 450 and 376 of IPC, does not warrant any interference in appeal. Impugned sentences of imprisonment for six month and seven years rigorous imprisonment with nominal amount of fine for the respective offences also do not call for any interference. ( 22. ) APPEAL being bereft of any merit is hereby dismissed. ( 23. ) APPELLANT is on bail. He shall surrender to his bail bonds to serve out the remaining part of his sentence.