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. When a deaf and dumb person is examined in the court, the court has to
exercise due caution and take care to ascertain before he is examined that he possesses the
requisite amount of intelligence and that he understands the nature of an oath. On being satisfied
on this, the witness may be administered oath by appropriate means and that also be with the
assistance of an interpreter. However, in case a person can read and write, it is most desirable to
adopt that method being more satisfactory than any sign language. The law required that there
must be a record of signs and not the interpretation of signs.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
State of Rajasthan Vs. Darshan Singh @ Darshan Lal
Coram : DR. B.S. CHAUHAN & DIPAK MISRA, JJ.
Criminal Appeal No.870 of 2007-Decided on 21-05-2012.
JUDGMENT
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.-This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order
dated 29.5.2006 in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature
for Rajasthan at Jodhpur setting aside the judgment and order dated 15.1.2003 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Hanumangarh, convicting the respondent herein of the
offences punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as `IPC’)
and imposing the punishment to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.
500/- in default to further undergo one month simple imprisonment.
2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that:
(A) Buta Singh (PW.15) lodged an oral report on 4.5.2001 at 1.00 a.m. at P.S.
Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh stating that on intervening night between
3/4.5.2001 at about 12.15 a.m., Jaswant Singh (PW.1) received a telephone call from Dr.
Amarjeet Singh Chawla (PW.4) to the effect that Jaswant Singh’s daughter was perturbed
and, therefore, he must immediately reach the house of his son-in-law Kaku Singh. Buta
Singh (PW.15), informant, also proceeded towards the house of Kaku Singh deceased,
alongwith his son Gurmail Singh. They met Jaswant Singh (PW.1) and Geeta (PW.16),
his daughter in the lane. The main door of the house was closed but the window of the
door was open. They went inside through the window and found two cots lying on some
distance where fresh blood was lying covered with sand. They also found the dead body
of Kaku Singh in the pool of blood covered by a quilt in the room.
(B) On being asked, Geeta (PW.16) (deaf and dumb), wife of Kaku Singh deceased
communicated by gestures that Darshan Singh, respondent- accused, had stayed with
them in the night. He had given a pill with water to Kaku Singh and thus he became
unconscious. Two more persons, accomplice of Darshan Singh came from outside and all
the three persons inflicted injuries on Kaku Singh with sharp edged weapons. Geeta
(PW.16) got scared and ran outside. The motive for committing the offence had been that
one Chhindri Bhatni was having illicit relationship with Kaku Singh, deceased, and about
8-10 months prior to the date of incident Kaku Singh caused burn injuries to Geeta
(PW.16) at the instigation of Chhindri Bhatni. However, because of the intervention of
Supreme Court Judgements @ www.stpl-india.in
2012 STPL(Web) 313 SC
State of Rajasthan Vs. Darshan Singh @ Darshan Lal
the community people, Kaku Singh, deceased, severed his relationship with Chhindri
Bhatni, who became annoyed and had sent her brother Darshan Singh alongwith other
persons who killed Kaku Singh.
(C) On the basis of the said report FIR No. 262 of 2001 was registered under Sections
449, 302, 201 and 120B IPC against the respondent at P.S Hanumangarh and
investigation ensued. The respondent was arrested and during interrogation, he made a
voluntary disclosure statement on the basis of which the I.O. got recovered a blood
stained Kulhari and clothes the respondent was wearing at the time of commission of
offence.
(D) After completion of the investigation, the police filed chargesheet against the
respondent under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and the trial commenced. During the course
of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses and tendered several
documents in evidence. However, Geeta (PW.16) was the sole eye-witness of the
occurrence, being deaf and dumb, her statement was recorded in sign language with the
help of her father Jaswant Singh (PW.1) as an interpreter. After completion of all the
formalities and conclusion of the trial, the trial court placed reliance upon the evidence of
Geeta (PW.16) and recovery etc., and convicted the respondent vide judgment and order
dated 15.1.2003 and imposed the punishment as mentioned here- in-above.
(E) Aggrieved, the respondent preferred Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2003 before the High
Court which has been allowed vide impugned judgment and order dated 29.5.2006.
Hence, this appeal.
3. Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the appellant-State,
has submitted that the prosecution case was fully supported by Geeta (PW.16), Jaswant Singh
(PW.1) and Buta Singh (PW.15) which stood fully corroborated by the medical evidence. Dr.
Rajendra Gupta (PW.17) proved the post-mortem report and supported the case of the
prosecution. Therefore, the High Court committed an error by reversing the well-reasoned
judgment of the trial court. Thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has opposed the appeal contending
that the deposition of Geeta (PW.16) cannot be relied upon for the reason that she is deaf and
dumb and her statement has not been recorded as per the requirement of the provisions of Section
119 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The deposition of Jaswant Singh (PW.1) cannot be relied upon as
he was having an eye on the property of Kaku Singh, deceased. The High Court has considered
the entire evidence and re-appreciated the same in correct perspective. There are fixed parameters
for interfering with the order of acquittal which we do not fit in the facts and circumstances of the
case, therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
5. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the records.
Undoubtedly, Kaku Singh, deceased, died a homicidal death. Dr. Rajendra Gupta (PW.17), who
conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Kaku Singh, found the following
injuries:
(i) Incised wound 4-1/2” x 1” bone deep fracture on the right lateral side of face mandible
region.
2
Supreme Court Judgements @ www.stpl-india.in
2012 STPL(Web) 313 SC
State of Rajasthan Vs. Darshan Singh @ Darshan Lal
3
(ii) Incised wound 5-1/2” x 2” bone deep all structure of neck cut wound. He opined that
the cause of death was injury to vessel of neck, trachea due to injury no. 2 which was
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
6. The only question that remains for consideration is whether the respondent could be held
responsible for causing the death of Kaku Singh, deceased.
Geeta (PW.16) is the star witness of the prosecution. According to her at 6.30 p.m. on the day of
incident, respondent-accused came to her house. The accused and her husband consumed liquor
together. The respondent-accused had mixed a tablet in the glass of water and the same was taken
by her husband Kaku Singh. She served the food to both of them and subsequently, all the three
persons slept on cots in the same room. During the night two persons also joined the respondent-
accused. It was at 11.30 p.m., accused Darshan Singh had taken out a kulhari from his bag and
gave blows on the neck and cheek of her husband. She raised a cry but accused caught her by the
hair and asked to keep quiet otherwise she would also be killed. The dead body was taken by the
accused alongwith accompanying persons and was put in a room and locked the same from
outside. In the court, Geeta (PW.16) witness indicated that she could read and write and she had
written telephone number of her father Jaswant Singh (PW.1). It was on her request that Dr.
Amarjeet Singh Chawla (PW.4) informed her father. After sometime, Jaswant Singh (PW.1)
came there on scooter and saw the place of occurrence.
7. Jaswant Singh (PW.1) deposed that he reached the place of occurrence after receiving the
telephone call from Dr. Amarjeet Singh Chawla (PW.4) and after coming to know about the
murder of Kaku Singh, he informed Buta Singh (PW.15), brother of deceased Kaku Singh.
Jaswant Singh (PW.1) reached the clinic of Dr. Amarjeet Singh Chawla (PW.4), in the way, he
met Buta Singh (PW.15) and his son Gurmail Singh. They came to the house of Kaku Singh,
deceased and found the blood covered with sand and also the dead body of Kaku Singh lying on a
cot in a room covered with quilt. Geeta (PW.16) informed him through gestures that respondent-
accused Darshan Singh had killed him with kulhari while Kaku Singh was sleeping. She also told
Jaswant Singh (PW.1) about the illicit relationship of Chhindri Bhatni with Kaku Singh, deceased
and because of the intervention of community persons, Kaku Singh had severed relationship with
Chhindri Bhatni. The latter got annoyed and got Kaku Singh killed through her brother Darshan
Singh, respondent-accused.
8. Buta Singh (PW.15), brother of deceased Kaku Singh, narrated the incident as had been stated
by Jaswant Singh (PW.1).
9. Dr. Rajendra Gupta, (PW.17), who conducted the post-mortem on the said dead body
supported the case of the prosecution to the extent that Kaku Singh, deceased, died of homicidal
death.
10. Gurtej Singh (PW.2) the recovery witness deposed about the inquest report of the dead body
and taking in custody of empty strip of tablet, blood stained soil and simple soil and moulds etc.
from the spot.
11. Hari Singh (PW.7), the recovery witness of kulhari (Ext. P-12) at the instance of respondent-
accused Darshan Singh supported the prosecution case to the extent of the said recovery.
12. Ramjilal (PW.23), Investigating Officer, gave full details of lodging an FIR at midnight and
explained all steps taken during the investigation, recoveries referred to here-in-above, recording
Supreme Court Judgements @ www.stpl-india.in
2012 STPL(Web) 313 SC
State of Rajasthan Vs. Darshan Singh @ Darshan Lal
of statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., sending the recovered material for FSL
report and arrest of Darshan Singh, respondent-accused etc.
13. Dr. Amarjeet Singh Chawla (PW.4) deposed that Geeta (PW.16) had asked him to give a
telephone call to her father and he had accordingly informed her father. After sometime, her
father Jaswant Singh (PW.1) had arrived on scooter. In the cross-examination, he explained that
Geeta (PW.16) was dumb and deaf, however, could read and write and she had written the
telephone number of her father as 55172 and, thus, he could contact her father.
14. The respondent-accused in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied all allegations.
The trial court found the evidence on record trustworthy and in view thereof, convicted the
respondent- accused and sentenced him as referred to hereinabove.
15. The High Court re-appreciated the entire evidence and came to the following conclusions:
(I) There were major contradictions in ocular evidence and medical evidence. As per the
statement of Geeta (PW.16), Kaku Singh, deceased and Darshan Singh, respondent-
accused had consumed liquor in the evening but this was not corroborated from medical
evidence. Dr. Rajendra Gupta (PW.17) has admitted that there was nothing to show that
deceased Kaku Singh had consumed liquor. Her version of giving a pill for intoxication
of deceased could not be proved by medical evidence. The viscera was sent to Forensic
Science Laboratory but the report did not show that any sort of poison had been
administered to the deceased.
(II) The version of Geeta (PW.16) did not appear to be trustworthy as she deposed that
Darshan Singh accused, Kaku Singh deceased and the witness had slept in the same
room. It was natural that a husband and wife would not allow a stranger to sleep with
them, even if Darshan Singh, accused, was known to them. In view of the fact that
relationship between Geeta and Chhindri Bhatni had never been cordial, it could not be
believed that Geeta (PW.16) would permit the brother of Chhindri Bhatni to sleep with
them.
(III) Geeta (PW.16) had admitted in her cross-examination that Chhindri Bhatni had 10
brothers and none of them had ever visited her house. Chhindri Bhatni was living in the
same house with deceased and Geeta. She further admitted that she had never seen
Darshan Singh, respondent-accused, prior to the date of incident. Even, she could not
disclose the features of the accused to the police. In such a fact- situation, the question of
sleeping all of them together could not arise.
(IV) There could be no motive for Darshan Singh, respondent-accused, to kill Kaku
Singh, deceased for the reason that even as per deposition of Geeta (PW.16), Kaku Singh
had severed the relationship with Chhindri Bhatni long ago.
(V) The name of Darshan Singh, respondent-accused, did not find place in the FIR. The
accused persons had been mentioned therein as Chhindri Bhatni and her brother.
(VI) So far as the recovery of kulhari (Ext. P-12) is concerned, even if believed, did not
lead to any interference for the simple reason that FSL report (Ext. P-64) revealed that
there was no human blood found on kulhari. Therefore, the evidence of recovery of
kulhari could not be used as incriminating circumstance against the accused.
4
Supreme Court Judgements @ www.stpl-india.in
2012 STPL(Web) 313 SC
State of Rajasthan Vs. Darshan Singh @ Darshan Lal
(VII) The evidence on record revealed that Geeta (PW.16) and Jaswant Singh (PW.1)
were apprehending that Kaku Singh deceased would alienate his irrigated land to
Chhindri Bhatni and, therefore, it became doubtful whether Darshan Singh,
respondent/accused could have any motive to kill Kaku Singh, deceased.
(VIII) The evidence of Geeta (PW.16) was recorded in sign language with the help of her
father Jaswant Singh (PW.1). Admittedly, neither she nor her father while acting as her
interpreter had been administered oath. The signs have been recorded alongwith its
interpretation. There was possibility of misinterpretation of the signs made by her, as her
father could do it purposely, the statement of Geeta (PW.16) did not inspire confidence.
(IX) Deposition of Geeta (PW.16) could not be relied upon as it was not safe for the court
to embark upon the examination of deaf and dumb witness, on her information without
the help of an expert or a person familiar of her mode of conveying ideas to others in day
to day life. Further, such a person should not be an interested person. In the instant case,
Jaswant Singh (PW.1) had participated in the investigation and was an interested person.
16. We have also gone through the entire evidence and concur with the findings recorded by the
High Court. Basic argument which has been advanced by both the parties before us is on the
admissibility and credibility of sole eye-witness Geeta (PW.16). Admittedly, Geeta (PW.16) had
not been administered oath, nor Jaswant Singh (PW.1), her father who acted as interpreter when
her statement was recorded in the court. In view of provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Oaths
Act, 1969, it is always desirable to administer oath or statement may be recorded on affirmation
of the witness. This Court in Rameshwar S/o Kalyan Singh v. The State of Rajasthan, AIR
1952 SC 54, has categorically held that the main purpose of administering of oath to render
persons who give false evidence liable to prosecution and further to bring home to the witness the
solemnity of the occasion and to impress upon him the duty of speaking the truth, further such
matters only touch credibility and not admissibility. However, in view of the provisions of
Section 7 of the Oaths Act, 1969, the omission of administration of oath or affirmation does not
invalidate any evidence.
17. In M.P. Sharma & Ors. v. Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi & Ors., AIR 1954
SC 300, this Court held that 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. When a deaf and dumb person is examined in the court, the court has to
exercise due caution and take care to ascertain before he is examined that he possesses the
requisite amount of intelligence and that he understands the nature of an oath. On being satisfied
on this, the witness may be administered oath by appropriate means and that also be with the
assistance of an interpreter. However, in case a person can read and write, it is most desirable to
adopt that method being more satisfactory than any sign language. The law required that there
must be a record of signs and not the interpretation of signs.
19. In Meesala Ramakrishan v. State of A.P., (1994) 4 SCC 182, this Court has considered the
evidentiary value of a dying declaration recorded by means of signs and nods of a person who is
not in a position to speak for any reason and held that the same amounts to a verbal statement
5
Supreme Court Judgements @ www.stpl-india.in
2012 STPL(Web) 313 SC
State of Rajasthan Vs. Darshan Singh @ Darshan Lal
and, thus, is relevant and admissible. The Court further clarified that `verbal’ statement does not
amount to `oral’ statement. In view of the provisions of Section 119 of the Evidence Act, the only
requirement is that witness may give his evidence in any manner in which he can make it
intelligible, as by writing or by signs and such evidence can be deemed to be oral evidence within
the meaning of Section 3 of the Evidence Act. Signs and gestures made by nods or head are
admissible and such nods and gestures are not only admissible but possess evidentiary value.
20. Language is much more than words. Like all other languages, communication by way of signs
has some inherent limitations, since it may be difficult to comprehend what the user is attempting
to convey. But a dumb person need not be prevented from being a credible and reliable witness
merely due to his/her physical disability. Such a person though unable to speak may convey
himself through writing if literate or through signs and gestures if he is unable to read and write.
A case in point is the silent movies which were understood widely because they were able to
communicate ideas to people through novel signs and gestures. Emphasised body language and
facial expression enabled the audience to comprehend the intended message.
21. To sum up, a deaf and dumb person is a competent witness. If in the opinion of the Court,
oath can be administered to him/her, it should be so done. Such a witness, if able to read and
write, it is desirable to record his statement giving him questions in writing and seeking answers
in writing. In case the witness is not able to read and write, his statement can be recorded in sign
language with the aid of interpreter, if found necessary. In case the interpreter is provided, he
should be a person of the same surrounding but should not have any interest in the case and he
should be administered oath.
22. In the instant case, there is sufficient material on record that Geeta (PW.16) was able to read
and write and this fact stood proved in the trial court when she wrote the telephone number of her
father. We fail to understand as to why her statement could not be recorded in writing, i.e., she
could have been given the questions in writing and an opportunity to reply the same in writing.
23. Be that as it may, her statement had been recorded with the help of her father as an interpreter,
who for the reasons given by the High Court, being an interested witness who had assisted during
the trial, investigation and was examined without administering oath, made the evidence
unreliable. In such a fact-situation, the High Court has rightly given the benefit of doubt and
acquitted the respondent.
24. We are fully aware of our limitation to interfere with an order against acquittal. In exceptional
cases where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment under appeal is found to be
perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court should
bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the trial Court’s
acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the
other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference.
25. If we examine the judgment of the High Court in light of the aforesaid legal proposition, we
do not find it to be a fit case to interfere with the order of acquittal. The appeal lacks merit and, is
accordingly, dismissed.
6
------
Supreme Court Judgements @ www.stpl-india.in
Print Page
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. When a deaf and dumb person is examined in the court, the court has to
exercise due caution and take care to ascertain before he is examined that he possesses the
requisite amount of intelligence and that he understands the nature of an oath. On being satisfied
on this, the witness may be administered oath by appropriate means and that also be with the
assistance of an interpreter. However, in case a person can read and write, it is most desirable to
adopt that method being more satisfactory than any sign language. The law required that there
must be a record of signs and not the interpretation of signs.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
State of Rajasthan Vs. Darshan Singh @ Darshan Lal
Coram : DR. B.S. CHAUHAN & DIPAK MISRA, JJ.
Criminal Appeal No.870 of 2007-Decided on 21-05-2012.
JUDGMENT
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.-This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order
dated 29.5.2006 in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature
for Rajasthan at Jodhpur setting aside the judgment and order dated 15.1.2003 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Hanumangarh, convicting the respondent herein of the
offences punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as `IPC’)
and imposing the punishment to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.
500/- in default to further undergo one month simple imprisonment.
2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that:
(A) Buta Singh (PW.15) lodged an oral report on 4.5.2001 at 1.00 a.m. at P.S.
Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh stating that on intervening night between
3/4.5.2001 at about 12.15 a.m., Jaswant Singh (PW.1) received a telephone call from Dr.
Amarjeet Singh Chawla (PW.4) to the effect that Jaswant Singh’s daughter was perturbed
and, therefore, he must immediately reach the house of his son-in-law Kaku Singh. Buta
Singh (PW.15), informant, also proceeded towards the house of Kaku Singh deceased,
alongwith his son Gurmail Singh. They met Jaswant Singh (PW.1) and Geeta (PW.16),
his daughter in the lane. The main door of the house was closed but the window of the
door was open. They went inside through the window and found two cots lying on some
distance where fresh blood was lying covered with sand. They also found the dead body
of Kaku Singh in the pool of blood covered by a quilt in the room.
(B) On being asked, Geeta (PW.16) (deaf and dumb), wife of Kaku Singh deceased
communicated by gestures that Darshan Singh, respondent- accused, had stayed with
them in the night. He had given a pill with water to Kaku Singh and thus he became
unconscious. Two more persons, accomplice of Darshan Singh came from outside and all
the three persons inflicted injuries on Kaku Singh with sharp edged weapons. Geeta
(PW.16) got scared and ran outside. The motive for committing the offence had been that
one Chhindri Bhatni was having illicit relationship with Kaku Singh, deceased, and about
8-10 months prior to the date of incident Kaku Singh caused burn injuries to Geeta
(PW.16) at the instigation of Chhindri Bhatni. However, because of the intervention of
Supreme Court Judgements @ www.stpl-india.in
2012 STPL(Web) 313 SC
State of Rajasthan Vs. Darshan Singh @ Darshan Lal
the community people, Kaku Singh, deceased, severed his relationship with Chhindri
Bhatni, who became annoyed and had sent her brother Darshan Singh alongwith other
persons who killed Kaku Singh.
(C) On the basis of the said report FIR No. 262 of 2001 was registered under Sections
449, 302, 201 and 120B IPC against the respondent at P.S Hanumangarh and
investigation ensued. The respondent was arrested and during interrogation, he made a
voluntary disclosure statement on the basis of which the I.O. got recovered a blood
stained Kulhari and clothes the respondent was wearing at the time of commission of
offence.
(D) After completion of the investigation, the police filed chargesheet against the
respondent under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and the trial commenced. During the course
of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses and tendered several
documents in evidence. However, Geeta (PW.16) was the sole eye-witness of the
occurrence, being deaf and dumb, her statement was recorded in sign language with the
help of her father Jaswant Singh (PW.1) as an interpreter. After completion of all the
formalities and conclusion of the trial, the trial court placed reliance upon the evidence of
Geeta (PW.16) and recovery etc., and convicted the respondent vide judgment and order
dated 15.1.2003 and imposed the punishment as mentioned here- in-above.
(E) Aggrieved, the respondent preferred Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2003 before the High
Court which has been allowed vide impugned judgment and order dated 29.5.2006.
Hence, this appeal.
3. Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the appellant-State,
has submitted that the prosecution case was fully supported by Geeta (PW.16), Jaswant Singh
(PW.1) and Buta Singh (PW.15) which stood fully corroborated by the medical evidence. Dr.
Rajendra Gupta (PW.17) proved the post-mortem report and supported the case of the
prosecution. Therefore, the High Court committed an error by reversing the well-reasoned
judgment of the trial court. Thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has opposed the appeal contending
that the deposition of Geeta (PW.16) cannot be relied upon for the reason that she is deaf and
dumb and her statement has not been recorded as per the requirement of the provisions of Section
119 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The deposition of Jaswant Singh (PW.1) cannot be relied upon as
he was having an eye on the property of Kaku Singh, deceased. The High Court has considered
the entire evidence and re-appreciated the same in correct perspective. There are fixed parameters
for interfering with the order of acquittal which we do not fit in the facts and circumstances of the
case, therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
5. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the records.
Undoubtedly, Kaku Singh, deceased, died a homicidal death. Dr. Rajendra Gupta (PW.17), who
conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Kaku Singh, found the following
injuries:
(i) Incised wound 4-1/2” x 1” bone deep fracture on the right lateral side of face mandible
region.
2
Supreme Court Judgements @ www.stpl-india.in
2012 STPL(Web) 313 SC
State of Rajasthan Vs. Darshan Singh @ Darshan Lal
3
(ii) Incised wound 5-1/2” x 2” bone deep all structure of neck cut wound. He opined that
the cause of death was injury to vessel of neck, trachea due to injury no. 2 which was
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
6. The only question that remains for consideration is whether the respondent could be held
responsible for causing the death of Kaku Singh, deceased.
Geeta (PW.16) is the star witness of the prosecution. According to her at 6.30 p.m. on the day of
incident, respondent-accused came to her house. The accused and her husband consumed liquor
together. The respondent-accused had mixed a tablet in the glass of water and the same was taken
by her husband Kaku Singh. She served the food to both of them and subsequently, all the three
persons slept on cots in the same room. During the night two persons also joined the respondent-
accused. It was at 11.30 p.m., accused Darshan Singh had taken out a kulhari from his bag and
gave blows on the neck and cheek of her husband. She raised a cry but accused caught her by the
hair and asked to keep quiet otherwise she would also be killed. The dead body was taken by the
accused alongwith accompanying persons and was put in a room and locked the same from
outside. In the court, Geeta (PW.16) witness indicated that she could read and write and she had
written telephone number of her father Jaswant Singh (PW.1). It was on her request that Dr.
Amarjeet Singh Chawla (PW.4) informed her father. After sometime, Jaswant Singh (PW.1)
came there on scooter and saw the place of occurrence.
7. Jaswant Singh (PW.1) deposed that he reached the place of occurrence after receiving the
telephone call from Dr. Amarjeet Singh Chawla (PW.4) and after coming to know about the
murder of Kaku Singh, he informed Buta Singh (PW.15), brother of deceased Kaku Singh.
Jaswant Singh (PW.1) reached the clinic of Dr. Amarjeet Singh Chawla (PW.4), in the way, he
met Buta Singh (PW.15) and his son Gurmail Singh. They came to the house of Kaku Singh,
deceased and found the blood covered with sand and also the dead body of Kaku Singh lying on a
cot in a room covered with quilt. Geeta (PW.16) informed him through gestures that respondent-
accused Darshan Singh had killed him with kulhari while Kaku Singh was sleeping. She also told
Jaswant Singh (PW.1) about the illicit relationship of Chhindri Bhatni with Kaku Singh, deceased
and because of the intervention of community persons, Kaku Singh had severed relationship with
Chhindri Bhatni. The latter got annoyed and got Kaku Singh killed through her brother Darshan
Singh, respondent-accused.
8. Buta Singh (PW.15), brother of deceased Kaku Singh, narrated the incident as had been stated
by Jaswant Singh (PW.1).
9. Dr. Rajendra Gupta, (PW.17), who conducted the post-mortem on the said dead body
supported the case of the prosecution to the extent that Kaku Singh, deceased, died of homicidal
death.
10. Gurtej Singh (PW.2) the recovery witness deposed about the inquest report of the dead body
and taking in custody of empty strip of tablet, blood stained soil and simple soil and moulds etc.
from the spot.
11. Hari Singh (PW.7), the recovery witness of kulhari (Ext. P-12) at the instance of respondent-
accused Darshan Singh supported the prosecution case to the extent of the said recovery.
12. Ramjilal (PW.23), Investigating Officer, gave full details of lodging an FIR at midnight and
explained all steps taken during the investigation, recoveries referred to here-in-above, recording
Supreme Court Judgements @ www.stpl-india.in
2012 STPL(Web) 313 SC
State of Rajasthan Vs. Darshan Singh @ Darshan Lal
of statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., sending the recovered material for FSL
report and arrest of Darshan Singh, respondent-accused etc.
13. Dr. Amarjeet Singh Chawla (PW.4) deposed that Geeta (PW.16) had asked him to give a
telephone call to her father and he had accordingly informed her father. After sometime, her
father Jaswant Singh (PW.1) had arrived on scooter. In the cross-examination, he explained that
Geeta (PW.16) was dumb and deaf, however, could read and write and she had written the
telephone number of her father as 55172 and, thus, he could contact her father.
14. The respondent-accused in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied all allegations.
The trial court found the evidence on record trustworthy and in view thereof, convicted the
respondent- accused and sentenced him as referred to hereinabove.
15. The High Court re-appreciated the entire evidence and came to the following conclusions:
(I) There were major contradictions in ocular evidence and medical evidence. As per the
statement of Geeta (PW.16), Kaku Singh, deceased and Darshan Singh, respondent-
accused had consumed liquor in the evening but this was not corroborated from medical
evidence. Dr. Rajendra Gupta (PW.17) has admitted that there was nothing to show that
deceased Kaku Singh had consumed liquor. Her version of giving a pill for intoxication
of deceased could not be proved by medical evidence. The viscera was sent to Forensic
Science Laboratory but the report did not show that any sort of poison had been
administered to the deceased.
(II) The version of Geeta (PW.16) did not appear to be trustworthy as she deposed that
Darshan Singh accused, Kaku Singh deceased and the witness had slept in the same
room. It was natural that a husband and wife would not allow a stranger to sleep with
them, even if Darshan Singh, accused, was known to them. In view of the fact that
relationship between Geeta and Chhindri Bhatni had never been cordial, it could not be
believed that Geeta (PW.16) would permit the brother of Chhindri Bhatni to sleep with
them.
(III) Geeta (PW.16) had admitted in her cross-examination that Chhindri Bhatni had 10
brothers and none of them had ever visited her house. Chhindri Bhatni was living in the
same house with deceased and Geeta. She further admitted that she had never seen
Darshan Singh, respondent-accused, prior to the date of incident. Even, she could not
disclose the features of the accused to the police. In such a fact- situation, the question of
sleeping all of them together could not arise.
(IV) There could be no motive for Darshan Singh, respondent-accused, to kill Kaku
Singh, deceased for the reason that even as per deposition of Geeta (PW.16), Kaku Singh
had severed the relationship with Chhindri Bhatni long ago.
(V) The name of Darshan Singh, respondent-accused, did not find place in the FIR. The
accused persons had been mentioned therein as Chhindri Bhatni and her brother.
(VI) So far as the recovery of kulhari (Ext. P-12) is concerned, even if believed, did not
lead to any interference for the simple reason that FSL report (Ext. P-64) revealed that
there was no human blood found on kulhari. Therefore, the evidence of recovery of
kulhari could not be used as incriminating circumstance against the accused.
4
Supreme Court Judgements @ www.stpl-india.in
2012 STPL(Web) 313 SC
State of Rajasthan Vs. Darshan Singh @ Darshan Lal
(VII) The evidence on record revealed that Geeta (PW.16) and Jaswant Singh (PW.1)
were apprehending that Kaku Singh deceased would alienate his irrigated land to
Chhindri Bhatni and, therefore, it became doubtful whether Darshan Singh,
respondent/accused could have any motive to kill Kaku Singh, deceased.
(VIII) The evidence of Geeta (PW.16) was recorded in sign language with the help of her
father Jaswant Singh (PW.1). Admittedly, neither she nor her father while acting as her
interpreter had been administered oath. The signs have been recorded alongwith its
interpretation. There was possibility of misinterpretation of the signs made by her, as her
father could do it purposely, the statement of Geeta (PW.16) did not inspire confidence.
(IX) Deposition of Geeta (PW.16) could not be relied upon as it was not safe for the court
to embark upon the examination of deaf and dumb witness, on her information without
the help of an expert or a person familiar of her mode of conveying ideas to others in day
to day life. Further, such a person should not be an interested person. In the instant case,
Jaswant Singh (PW.1) had participated in the investigation and was an interested person.
16. We have also gone through the entire evidence and concur with the findings recorded by the
High Court. Basic argument which has been advanced by both the parties before us is on the
admissibility and credibility of sole eye-witness Geeta (PW.16). Admittedly, Geeta (PW.16) had
not been administered oath, nor Jaswant Singh (PW.1), her father who acted as interpreter when
her statement was recorded in the court. In view of provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Oaths
Act, 1969, it is always desirable to administer oath or statement may be recorded on affirmation
of the witness. This Court in Rameshwar S/o Kalyan Singh v. The State of Rajasthan, AIR
1952 SC 54, has categorically held that the main purpose of administering of oath to render
persons who give false evidence liable to prosecution and further to bring home to the witness the
solemnity of the occasion and to impress upon him the duty of speaking the truth, further such
matters only touch credibility and not admissibility. However, in view of the provisions of
Section 7 of the Oaths Act, 1969, the omission of administration of oath or affirmation does not
invalidate any evidence.
17. In M.P. Sharma & Ors. v. Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi & Ors., AIR 1954
SC 300, this Court held that 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. When a deaf and dumb person is examined in the court, the court has to
exercise due caution and take care to ascertain before he is examined that he possesses the
requisite amount of intelligence and that he understands the nature of an oath. On being satisfied
on this, the witness may be administered oath by appropriate means and that also be with the
assistance of an interpreter. However, in case a person can read and write, it is most desirable to
adopt that method being more satisfactory than any sign language. The law required that there
must be a record of signs and not the interpretation of signs.
19. In Meesala Ramakrishan v. State of A.P., (1994) 4 SCC 182, this Court has considered the
evidentiary value of a dying declaration recorded by means of signs and nods of a person who is
not in a position to speak for any reason and held that the same amounts to a verbal statement
5
Supreme Court Judgements @ www.stpl-india.in
2012 STPL(Web) 313 SC
State of Rajasthan Vs. Darshan Singh @ Darshan Lal
and, thus, is relevant and admissible. The Court further clarified that `verbal’ statement does not
amount to `oral’ statement. In view of the provisions of Section 119 of the Evidence Act, the only
requirement is that witness may give his evidence in any manner in which he can make it
intelligible, as by writing or by signs and such evidence can be deemed to be oral evidence within
the meaning of Section 3 of the Evidence Act. Signs and gestures made by nods or head are
admissible and such nods and gestures are not only admissible but possess evidentiary value.
20. Language is much more than words. Like all other languages, communication by way of signs
has some inherent limitations, since it may be difficult to comprehend what the user is attempting
to convey. But a dumb person need not be prevented from being a credible and reliable witness
merely due to his/her physical disability. Such a person though unable to speak may convey
himself through writing if literate or through signs and gestures if he is unable to read and write.
A case in point is the silent movies which were understood widely because they were able to
communicate ideas to people through novel signs and gestures. Emphasised body language and
facial expression enabled the audience to comprehend the intended message.
21. To sum up, a deaf and dumb person is a competent witness. If in the opinion of the Court,
oath can be administered to him/her, it should be so done. Such a witness, if able to read and
write, it is desirable to record his statement giving him questions in writing and seeking answers
in writing. In case the witness is not able to read and write, his statement can be recorded in sign
language with the aid of interpreter, if found necessary. In case the interpreter is provided, he
should be a person of the same surrounding but should not have any interest in the case and he
should be administered oath.
22. In the instant case, there is sufficient material on record that Geeta (PW.16) was able to read
and write and this fact stood proved in the trial court when she wrote the telephone number of her
father. We fail to understand as to why her statement could not be recorded in writing, i.e., she
could have been given the questions in writing and an opportunity to reply the same in writing.
23. Be that as it may, her statement had been recorded with the help of her father as an interpreter,
who for the reasons given by the High Court, being an interested witness who had assisted during
the trial, investigation and was examined without administering oath, made the evidence
unreliable. In such a fact-situation, the High Court has rightly given the benefit of doubt and
acquitted the respondent.
24. We are fully aware of our limitation to interfere with an order against acquittal. In exceptional
cases where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment under appeal is found to be
perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court should
bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the trial Court’s
acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the
other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference.
25. If we examine the judgment of the High Court in light of the aforesaid legal proposition, we
do not find it to be a fit case to interfere with the order of acquittal. The appeal lacks merit and, is
accordingly, dismissed.
6
------
Supreme Court Judgements @ www.stpl-india.in
No comments:
Post a Comment