Kerala High Court Overturns Conviction Due to Procedural Flaws in Recording Deaf and Dumb Victim's Testimony

Court emphasizes need for standardized procedures in handling vulnerable witnesses to prevent miscarriage of justice.

In a landmark judgment, the Kerala High Court has set aside the conviction and sentence of Manoj, who was previously found guilty under Section 376(2)(l) of the Indian Penal Code by the Fast Track Special Court, Mattannur. The High Court ruled that fundamental procedural defects in recording the testimony of the victim, who is deaf and dumb, vitiated the trial, thereby necessitating the overturning of the conviction.

The case stemmed from allegations that Manoj committed rape on a deaf and dumb woman on December 24, 2019. The prosecution relied heavily on the testimony of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, the High Court found that the statement was improperly recorded with the assistance of an interested party - PW2, the victim’s niece and the first informant in the case - after the interpreter failed to decipher the victim's gestures.

Justice Gopinath P., presiding over the appeal, highlighted the legal mandate that interpreters or individuals familiar with the witness must be uninterested parties to ensure unbiased interpretation. The judgment referred to precedents set by the Supreme Court and various High Courts, emphasizing that using an interested party as an interpreter contravenes elementary principles of justice.

The court underscored the importance of recording the competence of witnesses unable to speak and ensuring that their statements are captured accurately and without bias. Justice Gopinath P. pointed out that the trial court failed to ensure the interpreter's qualifications and ability to understand the victim's gestures were properly recorded, leading to a miscarriage of justice.

In response, the court has issued directives to establish standardized procedures for recording statements of vulnerable witnesses, in line with guidelines issued by the Supreme Court and amendments in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. These directions aim to prevent future procedural lapses and ensure fair trial processes.

The judgment serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s role in safeguarding justice, especially for vulnerable witnesses, and highlights the need for courts to actively participate in ensuring the integrity of trial proceedings. The High Court's decision not to remand the case for a fresh trial reflects the irreparable nature of the procedural flaws and the necessity of safeguarding the rights of the accused.

Bottom Line:

Examination of a deaf and dumb witness under Section 119 of the Indian Evidence Act requires strict compliance with legal mandates, including the use of competent interpreters or individuals familiar with the witness - The statement of such witnesses must not be interpreted by interested parties, such as prosecution witnesses, to ensure adherence to principles of justice.

Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 376(2)(l), Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 164, Evidence Act, 1872 Sections 118 and 119, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 Sections 124 and 125, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 183

Manoj v. State of Kerala, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc id # 2781308