Conviction Based on Testimony of Deaf and Dumb Witness Not Sustainable Absent Compliance with Evidentiary Standards and Material Corroboration

In brief

The question

1. Whether the confessional statements recorded by the police are admissible in evidence to sustain a conviction?

The court held

The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

It also directed

The court set aside the judgment of conviction dated 05.06.2023 and the order of sentence dated 13.06.2023. The court granted the appellants the benefit of doubt, acquitted them of all charges, and ordered their immediate release. The appeals were allowed.

01Facts

The victim ('X'), a deaf and dumb female, was allegedly raped and blinded on 12.01.2021

p. 3

The informant (PW-5) lodged a fardbeyan stating he saw co-accused Lakshmi Mukhiya fleeing the scene with blood-stained clothes

p. 4

The appellants, Krishna and Ramawatar Mukhiya, were not named in the initial FIR but were later arrested and implicated based on the custodial confessional statements of Lakshmi Mukhiya and themselves

p. 10, 18

The trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 376(D), 326, 324, 201, and 511/34 IPC, predominantly relying on the victim's identification by gestures and the aforementioned confessions

p. 9

The appellants challenged this conviction on grounds of lack of legal evidence

p. 10

02Issues

i.1. Whether the confessional statements recorded by the police are admissible in evidence to sustain a conviction?

p. 18, 22

ii.2. Whether the testimony of a deaf and dumb witness recorded without following the prescribed legal safeguards (oath to interpreter, non-use of written medium) is reliable?

pp. 22-24

iii.3. Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt in light of material contradictions and lack of scientific corroboration?

pp. 14, 25-27

03Law Applied

the court primarily applied Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, which mandates that confessions made to police officers cannot be proved against an accused

p. 22

It relied on Section 119 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding evidence from a witness unable to communicate orally

p. 22

the court applied the principles from State of Rajasthan v. Darshan Singh @ Darshan Lal (2012) 5 SCC 789, which established that for a deaf/dumb witness, the interpreter must be administered an oath and, if the witness is literate, questions/answers should preferably be in writing

p. 23

Provisions in the judgment · 12 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 34 Section 201 Section 307 Section 324 Section 326 Section 376 Section 511

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Section 3 Section 4 Section 6

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 164 Section 313

04Reasoning

The High Court found the prosecution's case fundamentally flawed as the appellants were implicated solely via custodial confessions, which are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act

p. 18, 22

Regarding the victim’s testimony (PW-4), the court noted that the interpreter (PW-8) was not administered an oath, and the trial court failed to record whether the witness—who could sign her name and reportedly studied to Class VIII—could have communicated in writing

pp. 24-25

The court observed significant contradictions: while the informant claimed the victim was unconscious, PW-11 (a neighbor) claimed she was weeping

p. 27

Scientifically, while blood samples were taken, the FSL report failed to match the blood found on the weapons or the victim's clothes to these specific appellants

pp. 19-20

The court also highlighted a nine-hour delay in lodging the FIR and the fact that the actual "first version" recorded by the police from the victim’s family was suppressed

pp. 20-21