Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, dismissed the criminal appeal filed by Ramesh Hilal Ahire against his conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code for the rape of a 35-year-old completely hearing and speech impaired woman. The prosecutrix and her husband used to beg in the village for livelihood. On 8 March 2010, the complainant, the prosecutrix's sister-in-law, was informed by villagers that the prosecutrix was weeping in her home. She found the prosecutrix with swollen face and blood stains on her blouse. Through gestures, the prosecutrix conveyed that in the afternoon, while collecting firewood in the field, a person beat her and forcibly committed sexual intercourse. When taken to the lane, she identified the house of the accused Ramesh. The accused was fetched from his field, and the prosecutrix pointed at him with gestures indicating he committed the act. She also showed the spot in the Bajra crop field. The complaint was lodged the next day. The prosecution examined ten witnesses, including the complainant, PW2 Sunita Pazare (a teacher of hearing and speech impaired children who acted as interpreter), the prosecutrix herself, panch witnesses, the investigating officer, and the medical officer. Medical evidence found contusion on the prosecutrix's left cheek, swelling of vulva and labia, sticky fluid in vagina, and old torn hymen, corroborating recent sexual intercourse. The trial court convicted the accused and sentenced him to seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine. In appeal, the appellant raised two primary legal issues: first, that the trial court failed to record the signs and gestures made by the prosecutrix, vitiating the trial; second, that the interpreter Sunita Pazare was not independent as she had actively participated in the investigation by assisting the police in recording the statement and accompanying them to the spot for interpretation. The appellant relied on Ah Soi v. King Emperor and other cases to argue that the trial was unfair. The court, after analyzing Section 119 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, held that the law does not mandate recording of signs; it only requires that the evidence be given in an intelligible manner in open court. The interpreter's translation made the prosecutrix's testimony intelligible, and non-recording did not cause any prejudice. Regarding the interpreter's independence, the court distinguished Ah Soi, noting that in that case the interpreter was a witness himself, actively involved from the start, and even interpreted his own cross-examination. In the present case, PW2 Sunita Pazare was a trained teacher who merely interpreted the gestures upon police request and in court; she had no enmity with the accused and did not actively participate in investigation beyond translation. Thus, the trial was fair. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence.
Headnote
A) Evidence Law - Dumb Witness - Evidence through interpreter - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 119 - The court examined whether failure to record the gestures of the deaf-mute prosecutrix during trial vitiated the proceedings. It held that Section 119 only requires the evidence to be made intelligible in open court, and the recording of signs is not mandatory. The evidence given through the interpreter was sufficient and did not violate the right to fair trial. (Paras 15-16, 21) B) Criminal Procedure - Fair Trial - Independence of Interpreter - The appellant argued that the interpreter was not independent because she assisted police in recording statement and spot interpretation. The court found that the interpreter, a teacher of hearing-impaired, merely translated the gestures of the prosecutrix on police request and in court, without any active participation in investigation or enmity towards the accused. Held that the trial was fair. (Paras 19-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial was vitiated because the court failed to record the gestures of the deaf-mute prosecutrix, and whether the interpreter, who assisted police in recording statement and spot interpretation, was not independent.
Final Decision
The appeal was dismissed. The conviction and sentence were upheld. The court held that non-recording of gestures did not violate Section 119 Evidence Act as the evidence was given through interpreter in open court. The interpreter was independent and only interpreted, with no active role in investigation. The trial was fair.
Law Points
- Section 119 Indian Evidence Act
- evidence of dumb witness
- signs and gestures need not be recorded verbatim
- interpreter's role limited to translation
- active participation in investigation required for lack of independence
