Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 2591
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. VIMALA, J.
D. Baskaran
Versus
State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Chennai
Crl.R.C. No. 812 of 2013 & M.P. No. 1 of 2013
Decided on : 24-07-2013
For the Petitioner:S.D. Venkateswaran, Advocate.
For the Respondent:C. Iyyapparaj, Govt. Advocate (Crl.side).
The essential requirement of having a competent person-interpreter to explain charges in sign language to a deaf and dumb accused.
Headnote:
Deaf and Dumb - Criminal Procedure - The court directed the Sessions Judge to take the assistance of a competent person-interpreter to explain the charges in sign language and record the answer of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, claimed to be deaf and dumb, had charges framed under Sections 376 and 506 (ii) of IPC. The accused denied the charges.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charges had been explained to the accused in sign language by the Court itself, without the aid of an interpreter, which was under challenge in the revision case. The court set aside the order passed by the Sessions Judge and directed the use of a competent person-interpreter to explain the charges and record the answer of the accused.
Issues: The issue was whether the procedure followed in explaining the charges to a deaf and dumb accused was appropriate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it is essential to have the assistance of a competent person-interpreter to explain the charges in sign language to a deaf and dumb accused.
Final Decision: The order passed by the Sessions Judge was set aside, and the Sessions Judge was directed to take the assistance of a competent person-interpreter to explain the charges in sign language and record the answer of the accused.
1. The revision petition has been filed by the accused. The accused Baskaran is claimed to be a deaf and dumb person. Charges have been framed under Sections 376 and 506 (ii) of IPC. The accused is stated to have answered the charges by denying the same.
2. What is the procedure to be followed in case the accused/witness is deaf and dumb ? If the deaf and dumb person is able to read and write, it is desirable to record his statement giving him questions in writing and seeking answers in writing. In case, if he is not able to "read and write", it is desirable to get the statement recorded in sign language with the aid of interpreter.
2.1. The endorsement made by the learned Judge go to show that charges have been explained to him in sign language, but without the aid of an interpreter. The recording of the answer without the aid of interpreter is under challenge in this revision case.
3. Admittedly, as per the order passed by the Sessions Judge, the petitioner/accused is deaf and dumb and using sign language, the charges have been explained to the accused person, by the Court itself. The court can not be/need not be an expert in making intelligible gesture to the extent of making the accused to understand the charges, (which is most essential).
4. Therefore, the order passed by the Sessions Judge is set aside. The learned Sessions Judge is directed to take the assistance of the competent person-interpreter who could explain the charges in sign language and thereafter to record the answer of the accused.
5. With these directions, the criminal revision case is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
