Supreme Court: Testimony of a witness with disability not inferior; intersectionality need to be taken in to account while determining the case.

Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Hon'ble Chief Justice Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud & Hon'ble Justice M R Shah
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 452 of 2021
Case Title: Patan Jamali v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Date of Judgment: April 27, 2021 

Citation: 2021 INSC 272

Brief

The Supreme Court dealt with the appeal of Patan Jamali, convicted for the rape of a blind Scheduled Caste woman under Section 376(1) of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. While upholding the life sentence under the IPC, the Court set aside the conviction under the SC/ST Act for want of proof that the crime was committed “on the ground” of the victim’s caste (pre-2016 law). 

Emphasizing that the testimony of a witness with disability cannot be considered inferior to that of their able-bodied counterparts only on account of the disability, the Division Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the accused for raping a girl with visual impairment, belonging to the Scheduled Caste community. 

The Court recognised the overlapping identities at play and highlighted the increased vulnerability of women with disabilities to sexual violence. It emphasised the need for legal responses to acknowledge this dual vulnerability, as women with disabilities are often seen as ‘easy targets’ for sexual violence due to societal perceptions regarding their diminished capacity and their inability to speak out.

The court emphasised that threats against women with disabilities in India are not uncommon and can lead to feelings of powerlessness. However, the court clarified that by this they did not mean to subscribe to the stereotype that persons with disabilities are weak and helpless, rather aim to highlight the increased vulnerability in such cases, and cited reports such as the 2018 report by Human Rights Watch. The court also gave certain guidelines including the need for Awareness-raising campaigns, in accessible formats, to inform women. 

Key Facts

• The victim (PW2), a blind woman from a Scheduled Caste, was raped by the appellant, an acquaintance of her family, while her mother was nearby.
• The appellant was apprehended at the scene.
• Trial and High Court convicted him under both IPC and SC/ST Act provisions.

Key Observations

• Credibility of Disabled Witnesses: Disability does not diminish a person’s competence or credibility as a witness. A blind survivor’s testimony, if cogent and trustworthy, stands at par with any other witness.
• Intersectionality: The Court recognised that multiple marginalisations—being a woman, from a Scheduled Caste, and disabled—compound vulnerability to violence.
• Judicial Sensitivity: Special care is needed in recording testimony of disabled survivors, ensuring reasonable accommodation and avoiding prejudice.
• SC/ST Act Interpretation: Under the pre-2016 wording of Section 3(2)(v), the prosecution must prove the offense was committed solely “on the ground” of caste. The Court noted post-2016 amendments (“knowing that” and expanded presumptions) but did not apply them as the incident occurred in 2011.

Decision

• SC/ST Act: Conviction set aside for lack of proof on the “on the ground of” requirement.
• IPC Section 376(1): Conviction and life imprisonment upheld, considering the heinous nature of the offense and the victim’s compounded vulnerabilities.

Importance

This judgment reinforces that:

• Testimonies of persons with disabilities must be assessed on merit, not presumed incapacity.
• Courts must adopt an intersectional lens when dealing with marginalized survivors.
• Law enforcement and prosecution should handle disabled victims’ cases with sensitivity and without bias.
• It sets a precedent for respecting and upholding the credibility of disabled witnesses in sexual violence cases.

Read the judgement 

Read the final judgement in Patan Jamal Vali v. State of Andhra Pradesh embedded below: