LexSTATE OF RAJASTHAN versus DARSHAN SINGH @ DARSHAN LAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A (2012] 6 S.C.R. 18 STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. DARSHAN SINGH @ DARSHAN LAL (Criminal Appeal No. 870 of 2007) B MAY 21, 2012 [DR. 8.5. CHAUHAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.) Evidence Act, 1872 - ss. 119 and 118 - Deaf and dumb witness - Evidentiary value - Held: Deaf and dumb person is C a competent witness - If oath can be administered to him/her, it should be done by the court - If such a witness 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 the witness is not able to read and write, his statement D can be recorded in sign language with the aid of interpreter who should be a person of the same surrounding but should not have any interest in the case and he should be administered oath - On facts, though trial court convicted the respondent for offence punishable uls. 302 on basis of the E evidence o( sole eye-witness, who was deaf and dumb, but the High Court rightly set aside the acquittal - Sole eye-witness and her father who acted as interpreter when her statement was recorded, were not administered oath - Sufficient material on record that sole eye-witness was able to read and write and F said fact was stood proved in the trial court - But her statement was not recorded in writing - She was not given the questions in writing and an opportunity to reply the same in writing - Her statement was recorded with the help of her father as an interpreter, who was an interested witness - Thus, evidence G was unreliable and the High Court rightly gave benefit of doubt and acquitted the respondent - Oaths Act, 1969 - ss. 4 and 5 - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Order of acquittal - Interference by appellate court - Held: Appellate court can H 18 STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. DARSHAN SINGH @ 19 DARSHAN LAL interfere with the order of acquittal where there are compe/ling A circumstances and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse - 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 B possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference - On facts, not a fit case to interfere with the order of acquittal. The trial court convicted the respondent under Section 302 IPC and imposed rigorous imprisonment for C life for committing the murder of husband of PW 16. The trial court placed reliance upon the evidence of PW 16 and the various recoveries made. PW 16 was the sole eye-witness of the occurrence and being deaf and dumb, her statement was recorded in sign language with the D help of her father PW 1 as an interpreter. Aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal and the High Court acquitted the respondent. Therefore, the appellant-State filed the appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 In the instant case, PW.16 had not been administered oath, nor PW.1, her father who acted as interpreter when her statement was recorded in the court were administered oath. In view of provisions of Sections E F 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. The main purpose of administering of oath to render persons who give false evidence liable to prosecution and further to bring home G 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 H 20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R. A or affirmation does not invalidate any evidence. [Para 16) [30-D-G] Rameshwar slo Kalyan Singh v The State of Rajasthan AIR 1952 SC 54 - relied on. B M.P. Sharma and Ors. v. Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi and Ors. AIR 1954 SC 300: 1954 SCR 1077 - referred to. 1.2 The object of enacting the provisions of Section C 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 0 intelligent, and to be susceptible to far higher culture than o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.