A deaf-mute accused, if found to have sufficient intelligence to understand the criminal nature of the act committed, is not exempt from punishment.

1. In this case the accused a deaf and dumb man, has been convicted of murder under S.302, Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge, Trivandrum and the proceedings have been submitted to this Court under S.341, Criminal P. C. S.341, Criminal P. C. reads as follows:

"If the accused, though not insane, cannot be made to understand the proceedings, the Court may proceed with the inquiry or trial; and, in the case of a Court other than a High Court, if such inquiry results, in a commitment, or if such trial results in a conviction, the proceedings shall be forwarded to the High Court with a report of the circumstances of the case, and the High Court shall pass thereon such order as it thinks fit."

In committing the accused to the Court of Session, the learned First Class Magistrate, Varkala, who conducted the preliminary enquiry forwarded the proceedings to this Court with a report of the circumstances of the case as enjoined by the provision of law quoted above. Pursuant to that report, in Criminal Reference No. 3 of 1957, a Division Bench (Koshi, C.J. and Vaidialingam, J.) directed the learned Sessions Judge, Trivandrum to conduct the trial. That order was made on 17-6-1957. It invited the learned Sessions Judge's attention to the decision in In re Narayanan Nair 1957 K. L. T. 39. _ (1957) I. L. R. Kerala 1-for guidance and also directed the learned judge to afford the accused such special facilities as the circumstances warranted to enable him to understand the proceedings, to give him as fair a trial as possible and to ascertain whether the accused had sufficient intelligence to understand the criminal character of the act attributed to him. In his judgment convicting the accused the learned Sessions Judge has observed that as it was not possible to find out any relation of the accused to interpret the proceedings to him two persons who were acquainted with him were examined as court witnesses at the commencement of the trail and that their services were utilised by the court to communicate to the accused by gestures the substance of what each of the witnesses had testified. The accused belonged to some unknown place and the court was therefore not in a position to get at any relation of the accused to serve as an interpreter. As directed in the order of this Court in Criminal Reference No. 3 of 1957 the learned Sessions Judge had also made available to the accused the services of a fairly senior counsel to defend him. All the same the learned judge did not feel satisfied that the accused had fully understood the purport of the testimony of the witnesses examined against him. As directed by the learned judge the court witnesses explained the substance of the prosecution evidence to the accused by means of gestures and his answers during his examination under S, 342, Criminal P. C. were also made by gestures. The court understood him to deny the charge and to plead not guilty. On a careful evaluation of the evidence the learned judge has found that the offence of murder arraigned against the accused was well brought home to him, that though he was deaf and dumb he was perfectly sane and that he was intelligent enough to understand the criminal character of the act committed by him. Conformably to the provisions in S.341, Criminal P. C. the learned judge has therefore, after convicting the accused of the offence of murder, forwarded the proceeding to this Court to pass such orders as the Court deems fit.

2. Having found that the accused was a sane deaf-mute who could not be made to understand the proceedings of the trial, the learned judge rightly invoked the provisions of S.341, Criminal P. C. to make this reference after finding him guilty and convicting him of murder, without at the same time passing the sentence therefor. It is settled law that the provisions of the said section could be invoked only when the accused is unable to follow the proceedings-see King-Emperor v. Dada Mahadu (1901) III Bombay Law Reporter