Trial Vitiated if Statement of Deaf-Dumb Witness is Recorded Using an Interested Person as Interpreter: Kerala High Court - 2025-09-22

Kerala High Court Acquits Man in Rape Case, Cites Fatal Flaw in Recording Deaf-Dumb Victim's Testimony

Ernakulam: The Kerala High Court has acquitted a man convicted of raping a deaf and dumb woman, holding that the trial was fundamentally vitiated due to a critical procedural error. The court found that the victim's statement, which formed the basis of her testimony, was recorded with the help of her niece, who was also the first informant and a key prosecution witness.

Justice Gopinath P., allowing the appeal filed by Manoj, set aside the conviction and 10-year sentence imposed by the Fast Track Special Court, Mattannur. The High Court ruled that using an "interested person" as an interpreter for a witness unable to communicate verbally is contrary to established legal principles and compromises the fairness of the trial.

Case Background

The appellant, Manoj, was accused of raping a deaf and dumb woman (PW1) on December 24, 2019. The matter came to light when the victim's niece (PW2) noticed her distress and reported the alleged assault to the Kolavallur Police, leading to the registration of an FIR. The trial court found Manoj guilty under Section 376(2)(l) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.

Arguments in the High Court

The appellant's counsel, Sri. Vishnuprasad Nair, argued that the appeal should be allowed on a singular, fatal flaw. He pointed out that during the recording of the victim's statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., the court-appointed interpreter was unable to decipher her signs. The Magistrate then enlisted the help of PW2 (the victim's niece and the first informant) to interpret. This statement was later treated as the victim’s examination-in-chief at trial. The defence contended this was impermissible, as PW2 was an "interested witness," violating principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Darshan Singh .

The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, argued against acquittal. It maintained that the Magistrate had followed the law by arranging an interpreter and videographing the process. The prosecution asserted that PW2, being a close family member, was the only one who could understand the victim and that a technicality should not allow the accused to escape conviction. It was suggested that if the court found a defect, the case should be remanded for a fresh trial.

Court's Analysis and Precedents

Justice Gopinath P. meticulously examined the legal framework governing the testimony of witnesses unable to communicate verbally, particularly Section 119 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court heavily relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Darshan Singh , which affirmed that while a person familiar with a deaf and dumb witness can aid the court, such a person "should not have any interest in the case."

The judgment emphasized the principle laid down in the Darshan Singh case:

"...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.”

The court found that by using PW2, who was both the first informant and a prosecution witness, the Magistrate had violated this cardinal rule. This procedural lapse was not a mere technicality but a fundamental defect that compromised the integrity of the evidence.

“Given that the learned Magistrate utilized the services of PW2 to record the statement of PW1 under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., and considering that PW2 was the first informant in this case and was also a witness examined for the prosecution, it becomes evident that the law as can be gathered from ratio of Alavi (supra) and Darshan Singh (supra) has been violated,” the judgment stated.

The court further noted that since this flawed statement was treated as the examination-in-chief, the appellant's right to an effective cross-examination was also denied, rendering the entire trial process unfair.

Verdict and New Guidelines

Concluding that the trial was vitiated by an irremediable defect, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence. It declined the prosecution's request to remand the case for a fresh trial.

Recognizing the need for a standardized procedure to prevent such miscarriages of justice, the court issued a comprehensive set of six directions for all subordinate courts in Kerala. These guidelines mandate that judges must:

- Formally record their satisfaction with a witness's competence.

- Assess if a witness can communicate through writing before resorting to signs.

- Verify and record the qualifications and competence of any interpreter used.

- Ensure the interpreter is not an interested party in the case.

- Administer an oath to the witness, interpreter, and any other person assisting the court.

- Record the demeanour of the witness during testimony.

These directions aim to safeguard the rights of both the vulnerable witness and the accused, ensuring that evidence is recorded in a manner that is fair, reliable, and legally sound.