Interpreter changed, HC declines deleting ‘deaf & dumb’ victim’s recorded evidence

Kolkata: Directing the trial court to proceed with the criminal case expeditiously, the Calcutta High Court refused to interfere with the lower court’s decision of not expunging recorded evidence of a ‘deaf and dumb’ victim girl due to removal of an interpreter.

The bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) was moved challenging a trial court order and judgement. The petitioner prayed that the recorded evidence of the victim girl be expunged since the interpreter present during the victim’s examination and part cross-examination was later removed by the trial court upon being dissatisfied by her efficiency. The trial court had also withheld further cross examination of the girl after the dismissal of the interpreter. Thereafter, a new interpreter was appointed. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that it is necessary that the existing evidence of the victim girl which is already on record must be expunged and fresh evidence from the beginning should be recorded with the help of the new interpreter.

According to Section 119 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, a witness who is unable to speak may give his evidence in any other manner in which he can make it intelligible, as by writing or by signs, but such writing must be written and the signs made in open court. Evidence so given shall be deemed to be oral evidence. The bench relied on Supreme Court judgement in ‘State of Rajasthan vs Darshan Singh@ Darshan Lal’ where the apex court held that when a deaf and dumb person is examined in the court, the court has to exercise due caution and ascertain that he possess requisite amount of intelligence and understands the nature of an oath. The witness may be administered an oath with the assistance of an interpreter. The law requires that there must be a record of signs and not the interpretation of signs.

The High Court bench observed that the victim has not prayed for recording of fresh evidence on the interpreter being changed. Thus, the prayer of the accused/petitioner cannot be entertained in the interest of justice. Hence, the court observed that any interference in such proceedings shall be an abuse of process of law.