Competency of deaf and dumb witness depends on reliable recording; unsafe interpreter evidence and benefit of doubt upheld acquittal.

A deaf and dumb witness is a competent witness and may depose by signs, gestures or writing, but the evidence must be recorded in a reliable manner. The omission to administer oath does not by itself invalidate the testimony, yet in this case the statement was recorded through the witness's father, who was an interested person and participated in the investigation, and neither was sworn. The Court treated that mode of recording as unsafe and insufficient to sustain conviction. It also reiterated that interference with an acquittal is justified only where the view taken is perverse, and held that the High Court's benefit-of-doubt assessment was a possible view. The acquittal was therefore left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the conviction could be sustained on the basis of the testimony of a deaf and dumb witness recorded through her father as interpreter without administering oath to either of them. (ii) Whether, in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court should interfere with the High Court's view extending benefit of doubt to the accused.

Issue (i): Whether the conviction could be sustained on the basis of the testimony of a deaf and dumb witness recorded through her father as interpreter without administering oath to either of them.

Analysis: A deaf and dumb person is a competent witness under Section 119 of the Evidence Act, 1872, and may depose by signs, gestures, or writing. Where the witness is literate, recording answers in writing is the preferable course. Omission to administer oath does not by itself invalidate the evidence under the Oaths Act, 1969, but the manner of recording must ensure reliability. Here, the witness's statement was recorded through her father, who was an interested person and had also participated in the investigation, and neither the witness nor the interpreter was administered oath. The Court found that this mode of recording rendered the evidence unsafe for reliance.

Conclusion: The testimony of the deaf and dumb witness, recorded in the manner adopted in this case, was not reliable enough to sustain the conviction.

Issue (ii): Whether, in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court should interfere with the High Court's view extending benefit of doubt to the accused.

Analysis: Interference with an order of acquittal is justified only where the view taken is perverse or there exist compelling reasons. The presumption of innocence stands reinforced by acquittal. On the evidence on record, the High Court's assessment that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt was a possible and reasonable view. The recovery evidence and other circumstances did not displace the doubts surrounding the sole eyewitness account.

Conclusion: No interference with the acquittal was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution case failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the acquittal was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A deaf and dumb witness is competent, but when the testimony is recorded through an interested interpreter in an unreliable manner, the evidence may be rejected and benefit of doubt granted; an acquittal based on such appreciation should not be interfered with unless the view is perverse.

---