2012 (12) TMI 877 - SC - Indian Laws

Interfere with the order of acquittal - respondent herein of the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC 1860 and imposing the punishment to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further undergo one month simple imprisonment - Geeta the sole eye-witness of the occurrence was deaf and dumb - Held that - A deaf and dumb person is a competent witness. If in the opinion of the Court oath can be administered to him/her it should be so done. Such a witness if 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 can be recorded in sign language with the aid of interpreter if found necessary. 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. There is sufficient material on record that Geeta was able to read and write and this fact stood proved in the trial court when she wrote the telephone number of her father. We fail to understand as to why her statement could not be recorded in writing i.e. she could have been given the questions in writing and an opportunity to reply the same in writing. Be that as it may her statement had been recorded with the help of her father as an interpreter who for the reasons given by the High Court being an interested witness who had assisted during the trial investigation and was examined without administering oath made the evidence unreliable. In such a fact-situation the High Court has rightly given the benefit of doubt and acquitted the respondent. Fully aware of our limitation to interfere with an order against acquittal. In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The 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 possible should be avoided unless there are good reasons for interference. Thus examine the judgment of the High Court in light of the aforesaid legal proposition it is not a fit case to interfere with the order of acquittal as there were major contradictions in ocular evidence and medical evidence. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility and credibility of the sole eye-witness, Geeta (PW.16), who is deaf and dumb.
2. Contradictions between ocular evidence and medical evidence.
3. Motive for the crime.
4. Recovery of the murder weapon (kulhari) and its evidentiary value.
5. Procedural lapses in recording the statement of Geeta (PW.16).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility and Credibility of Sole Eye-Witness (Geeta, PW.16):
The primary issue was whether the testimony of Geeta (PW.16), who is deaf and dumb, could be relied upon. The High Court found significant procedural lapses in recording her statement. Neither Geeta nor her father, who acted as an interpreter, were administered an oath, which is crucial under Sections 4 and 5 of the Oaths Act, 1969. The Supreme Court emphasized that while the omission of oath does not invalidate evidence per se, it affects credibility. The Court noted that Geeta could read and write, and her statement should have been recorded in writing. The High Court concluded that the evidence provided by Geeta, interpreted by her father (an interested party), did not inspire confidence and was unreliable.

2. Contradictions Between Ocular and Medical Evidence:
The High Court observed major contradictions between the ocular evidence provided by Geeta (PW.16) and the medical evidence. Geeta claimed that the deceased, Kaku Singh, had consumed liquor and a pill given by the accused, Darshan Singh. However, Dr. Rajendra Gupta (PW.17), who conducted the post-mortem, found no traces of alcohol or poison in the deceased's body. This discrepancy led the High Court to question the reliability of Geeta's testimony.

3. Motive for the Crime:
The High Court found inconsistencies regarding the motive for the crime. Geeta (PW.16) suggested that the murder was due to an illicit relationship between Kaku Singh and Chhindri Bhatni. However, it was noted that Kaku Singh had severed ties with Chhindri Bhatni long before the incident, reducing the plausibility of this motive. Additionally, Geeta admitted she had never seen Darshan Singh before the incident, further weakening the motive argument.

4. Recovery of the Murder Weapon (Kulhari):
The High Court scrutinized the recovery of the kulhari (Ext. P-12) at the instance of the accused. The FSL report (Ext. P-64) revealed no human blood on the weapon, rendering this piece of evidence non-incriminating. The Supreme Court concurred with the High Court's assessment that the recovery did not substantiate the prosecution's case.

5. Procedural Lapses in Recording the Statement:
The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of correctly recording the statement of a deaf and dumb witness under Section 119 of the Evidence Act. The Court noted that the trial court failed to administer an oath to Geeta and her interpreter father, and did not utilize her ability to read and write for recording her statement. These procedural lapses significantly affected the credibility of the evidence.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to acquit the respondent, emphasizing the procedural lapses and contradictions in evidence. The Court reiterated the presumption of innocence and the need for compelling reasons to overturn an acquittal. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's judgment.