STATE OF RAJASTHANversusDARSHAN SINGH @ DARSHAN LAL

                          (2012] 6 S.C.R. 18


A
                     STATE OF RAJASTHAN
                                v.
               DARSHAN SINGH @ DARSHAN LAL
                (Criminal Appeal No. 870 of 2007)
B                           MAY 21, 2012
          [DR. 8.5. CHAUHAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.)

          Evidence Act, 1872 - ss. 119 and 118 - Deaf and dumb
     witness - Evidentiary value - Held: Deaf and dumb person is
C   a competent witness - If oath can be administered to him/her,
    it should be done by the court - If such a witness is 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
D   can be recorded in sign language with the aid of interpreter
    who should be a person of the same surrounding but should
    not have any interest in the case and he should be
    administered oath - On facts, though trial court convicted the
    respondent for offence punishable uls. 302 on basis of the
E   evidence o( sole eye-witness, who was deaf and dumb, but the
    High Court rightly set aside the acquittal - Sole eye-witness
    and her father who acted as interpreter when her statement
    was recorded, were not administered oath - Sufficient material
    on record that sole eye-witness was able to read and write and
F   said fact was stood proved in the trial court - But her statement
    was not recorded in writing - She was not given the questions
    in writing and an opportunity to reply the same in writing - Her
    statement was recorded with the help of her father as an
    interpreter, who was an interested witness - Thus, evidence
G   was unreliable and the High Court rightly gave benefit of doubt
    and acquitted the respondent - Oaths Act, 1969 - ss. 4 and 5
    - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302.
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Order of acquittal -
  Interference by appellate court - Held: Appellate court can
H                             18
   STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. DARSHAN SINGH @                      19
                DARSHAN LAL
interfere with the order of acquittal where there are compe/ling    A
circumstances and the judgment under appeal is found to be
perverse - 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          B
possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons
for interference - On facts, not a fit case to interfere with the
order of acquittal.
      The trial court convicted the respondent under
Section 302 IPC and imposed rigorous imprisonment for               C
life for committing the murder of husband of PW 16. The
trial court placed reliance upon the evidence of PW 16
and the various recoveries made. PW 16 was the sole
eye-witness of the occurrence and being deaf and dumb,
her statement was recorded in sign language with the                D
help of her father PW 1 as an interpreter. Aggrieved, the
respondent filed an appeal and the High Court acquitted
the respondent. Therefore, the appellant-State filed the
appeal.
                                                                    E
    Dismissing the appeal, the Court
     HELD: 1.1 In the instant case, PW.16 had not been
administered oath, nor PW.1, her father who acted as
interpreter when her statement was recorded in the court
were administered oath. In view of provisions of Sections           F
4 and 5 of the Oaths Act, 1969, it is always desirable to
administer oath or statement may be recorded on
affirmation of the witness. The main purpose of
administering of oath to render persons who give false
evidence liable to prosecution and further to bring home            G
to the witness the solemnity of the occasion and to
impress upon him the duty of speaking the truth, further
such matters only touch credibility and not admissibility.
However, in view of the provisions of Section 7 of the
Oaths Act, 1969, the omission of administration of oath             H
    20      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A or affirmation does not invalidate any evidence. [Para 16)
  [30-D-G]
        Rameshwar slo Kalyan Singh v The State of Rajasthan
    AIR 1952 SC 54 - relied on.
B       M.P. Sharma and Ors. v. Satish Chandra, District
    Magistrate, Delhi and Ors. AIR 1954 SC 300: 1954 SCR
    1077 - referred to.
       1.2 The object of enacting the provisions of Section
C 119 of the Evidence Act reveals that deaf and dumb
  persons were earlier contemplated in law as idiots.
  However, such a view has subsequently been changed
  for the reason that modern science revealed that persons
  affected with such calamities are generally found more
  intelligent, and to be susceptible to far higher culture than
0 one was once supposed. When a deaf and dumb person
  is examined in the court, the court has to exercise due
  caution and take care to ascertain before he is examined
  that he possesses the requisite amount of intelligence
  and that he understands the nature of an oath. On being
E satisfied on this, the witness may be administered oath
  by appropriate means and that also be with the
  assistance of an interpreter. However, in case a person
  can read and write, it is most desirable to adopt that
  method being more satisfactory than any sign language.
F The law required that there must be a record of signs and
  not the interpretation of signs. [Para 18) [31-8-D]
         Meesa/a Ramakrishan v. State of A.P. (1994) 4 SCC 182
    - referred to.
G     1.3 Language is much more than words. Like all
  other languages, communication by way of signs has
  some inherent limitations, since it may be difficult to
  comprehend what the user is attempting to convey. But
  a dumb person need not be prevented from being a
H credible and reliable witness merely due to his/her
   STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. DARSHAN SINGH@                   21
                DARSHAN LAL
 "
physical  disability. Such a person though unable to            A
speak may convey himself through writing if literate or
through signs and gestures if he is unable to read and
write. A case in point is the silent movies which were
understood widely because they were able to
communicate ideas to people through novel signs and             B
gestures. Emphasised body language and facial
expression enabled the audience to comprehend the
intended message. (Para 20] [32-A-C]
     1.4 A deaf and dumb person is a competent witness.
If in the opinion of the Court, oath can be administered        C
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         D
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. [Para 21] [32-
D-E]                                                            E
     1.5 In the instant case, there is sufficient material on
record that sole eye-witness-PW.16 was able to read and
write a.nd this fact stood proved in the trial court when
she wrote the telephone number of her father. It cannot
be understood' as 'fo why her statement could not be            F
recorded in writing, i.e., she could have been given the
questions in writing and an opportunity to reply the same
in writing. 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          G
assisted during the trial, investigation and was examined
without administering oath, made the evidence
unreliable. In such a fact-situation, the High Court rightly
gave the benefit of doubt and acquitted the respondent.
[Paras 22, 23] [32-F-H; 33-A]                                   H
    22       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 6 S.C.R.

A      1.6 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
B 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. [Para 24) [33-8-C]

       1.7 On examination of the judgment of the High Court
C in the light of the said legal position, it is not a fit case to
  interfere with the order of acquittal. [Para 25] [33-D]
                         Case Law Reference:       I

         AIR 1952 SC 54           Relied on            Para 16
D
         1954 SCR 1077            Referred to          Para 17
         (1994) 4 sec 1a2         Referred to          Para 19
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
E No. 870 of 2007.

        From the Judgment and Order dated 29.05.2006 of the
    High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B.
    Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2003.
F        Dr. Manish Singhvi, AAG, Milind Kumar for the Appellant

         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       DR. 8.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal has been
G preferred against the judgment and order dated 29.5.2006 in
  D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2003 passed by the High Court
  of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur setting aside the
  judgment and order dated 15.1.2003 passed by the Additional
  Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Hanumangarh, convicting the
H
   STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. DARSHAN SINGH @                          23
      DARSHAN LAL [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
respondent herein of the offences punishable under Section              A
302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as 'IPC')
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.
                                                                        B
        2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are
that:

      A. Singh (PW.15) lodged an oral report on 4.5.2001 at 1.00
a.m. at P.S. Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh stating that
on intervening night between 3/4.5.2001 at about 12.15 a.m.,            C
Jaswant Singh (PW.1) received a telephone call from Dr.
Amarjeet Singh Chawla (PW.4) to the effect that Jaswant
Singh's daughter was perturbed and, therefore, he must
immediately reach the house of his son-in-law Kaku Singh.
Buta Singh (PW.15), informant, also proceeded towards the               D
house of Kaku Singh deceased, alongwith his son Gurmail
Singh. They met Jaswant Singh (PW.1) and Geeta (PW.16),
his daughter in the lane. The main door of the house was closed
but the window of the door was open. They went inside through
the window and found two cots lying on some distance where              E
fresh blood was lying covered with sand. They also found the
dead body of Kaku Singh in the pool of blood covered by a
quilt in the room.'

      B. On being asked, Geeta (PW.16) (deaf and dumb), wife
of Kaku Singh deceased communicated by gestures that
                                                                        F
Darshan Singh, respondent-accused, had stayed with them in
the night. He had given a pill with water to Kaku Singh and thus
he became unconscious. Two more persons, accomplice of
Darshan Singh came from outside and all the three persons
inflicted injuries on Kaku Singh with sharp edged weapons.              G
Geeta (PW.16) got scared and ran outside. The motive for
committing the offence had been that one Chhindri Bhatni was
having illicit relationship with Kaku Singh, deceased, and about
8-10 months prior to the date of incident Kaku Singh caused
burn injuries to Geeta (PW.16) at the instigation of Chhindri           H
    24       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A   Bhatni. However, because of the intervention of the community
    people, Kaku Singh, deceased, severed his relationship with
    Chhindri Bhatni, who became annoyed and had sent her brother
    Darshan Singh alongwith other persons who killed Kaku Singh.

8      C. On the basis of the said report FIR No. 262 of 2001
  was registered under Sections 449, 302, 201 and 1208 IPC
  against the respondent at P.S Hanumangarh and investigation
  ensued. The respondent was arrested and during interrogation,
  he made a voluntary disclosure statement on the basis of which
C the 1.0. got recovered a blood stained Kulhari and clothes the
  respondent was wearing at the time of commission of offence.

        D. After completion of the investigation, the police filed
   chargesheet against the respondent under Sections 302 and
   201 IPC and the trial commenced. During the course of trial,
D the prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses and
   tendered several documents in evidence. However, Geeta
   (PW.16) was the sole eye-witness of the occurrence, being
   deaf and dumb, her statement was recorded in sign language
   with the help of her father Jaswant Singh (PW.1) as an
E interpreter. After completion of all the formalities and conclusion
   of the trial, the trial court placed reliance upon the evidence of
   Geeta (PW.16) and recovery etc., and convicted the
 . respondent vide judgment and order dated 15.1.2003 and
   imposed the punishment as mentioned here-in-above.
F
         E. Aggrieved, the respondent preferred Criminal Appeal
    No. 96 of 2003 before the High Court which has been allowed
    vide impugned judgment and order dated 29.5.2006.

         Hence, this appeal.
G
        3. Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned Additional Advocate
  General, appearing for the appellant-State, has submitted that
  the prosecution case was fully supported by Geeta (PW.16),
  Jaswant Singh (PW.1) and Buta Singh (PW.15) which stood
H fully corroborated by the medical evidence. Dr. Rajendra Gupta
   STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. DARSHAN SINGH @                       25
      DARSHAN LAL [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

(PW.17) proved the post-mortem report and supported the              A
case of the prosecution. Therefore, the High Court committed
an error by reversing the well-reasoned judgment of the trial
court. Thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

      4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the               8
respondent has opposed the appeal contending that the
deposition of Geeta (PW.16) cannot be relied upon for the
reason that she is deaf and dumb and her statement has not
been recorded as per the requirement of the provisions of
Section 119 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The deposition of             C
Jaswant Singh (PW.1) cannot be relied upon as he was having
an eye on the property of Kaku Singh, deceased. The High
Court has considered the entire evidence and re-appreciated
the same in correct perspective. There are fixed parameters
for interfering with the order of acquittal which we do not fit in   D
the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, the appeal
is liable to be dismissed.

     5. We have considered the rival submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
                                                                     E
     Undoubtedly, Kaku Singh, deceased, died a homicidal
death. Dr. Rajendra Gupta (PW.17), who conducted the post-
mortem examination on the dead body of Kaku Singh, found
the following injuries:

      (i)    Incised wound 4-1/2" x 1" bone deep fracture on         F
             the right lateral side of face mandible region.

      (ii)   Incised wound 5-1/2" x 2" bone deep all structure
             of neck cut wound.
                                                                     G
     He opined that the cause of death was injury to vessel of
neck, trachea due to injury no. 2 which was sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death.

    6. The only question that remains for consideration is
                                                                     H
    26       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A   whether the respondent could be held responsible for causing
    the death of Kaku Singh, deceased.

          Geeta (PW.16) is the star witness of the prosecution.
    According to her at 6.30 p.m. on the day of incident,
B   respondent-accused came to her house. The accused and her
    husband consumed liquor together. The respondent-accused
    had mixed a tablet in the glass of water and the same was taken
    by her husband Kaku Singh. She served the food to both of
    them and subsequently, all the three persons slept on cots in
C   the same room. During the night two persons also joined the
    respondent-accused. It was at 11.30 p.m., accused Darshan
    Singh had taken out a kulhari from his bag and gave blows on
    the neck and cheek of her husband. She rc-ised a cry but
    accused caught her by the hair and asked to keep quiet
    otherwise she would also be killed. The dead body was taken
D   by the accused alongwith accompanying persons and was put
    in a room and locked the same from outside. In the court, Geeta
    (PW.16) witness indicated that she could read and write and
    she had written telephone number of her father Jaswant Singh
    (PW.1 ). It was on her request that Dr. Amarjeet Singh Chawla
E   (PW.4) informed her father. After sometime, Jaswant Singh
    (PW.1) came there on scooter and saw the place of
    occurrence.

         7. Jaswant Singh (PW.1) deposed that he reached the
F   place of occurrence after receiving the telephone call from Dr.
    Amarjeet Singh Chawla (PW.4) and after coming to know about
    the murder of Kaku Singh, he informed Buta Singh (PW.15),
    brother of deceased Kaku Singh. Jaswant Singh (PW.1)
    reached the clinic of Dr. Amarjeet Singh Chawla (PW.4), in the
G   way, he met Buta Singh (PW.15) and his son Gurmail Singh.
    They came to the house of Kaku Singh, deceased and found
    the blood covered with sand and also the dead body of Kaku
    Singh lying on a cot in a room covered with quilt. Geeta (PW.16)
    informed him through gestures that respondent-accused
    Darshan Singh had killed him with kulhari while Kaku Singh was
H
   STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. DARSHAN SINGH @                        27
      DARSHAN LAL [DR. S.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
sleeping. She also told Jaswant Singh (PW.1) about the illicit        A
relationship of Chhindri Bhatni with Kaku Singh, deceased and
because of the intervention of community persons, Kak.u Singh
had severed relationship with Chhindri Bhatni. The latter got
annoyed and got Kaku Singh killed through her brother Darshan
Singh, respondent-accused.                                            B

     8. Buta Singh (PW.15), brother of deceased Kaku Singh,
narrated the incident as had been stated by Jaswant Singh
(PW.1).

    9. Dr. Rajendra Gupta, (PW.17), who conducted the post- C
mortem on the said dead body supported the case of the
prosecution to the extent that Kaku Singh, deceased, died of
homicidal death.

    10. Gurtej Singh (PW.2) the recovery witness deposed              D
about the inquest report of the dead body and taking in custody
of empty strip of tablet, blood stained soil and simple soil and
moulds etc. from the spot.                   ,

     11. Hari Singh (PW. 7), the recovery witness of kulhari (Ext.
P-12) at the instance of respondent-accused Darshan Singh             E
supported the prosecution case to the extent of the said
recovery.

     12. Ramjilal (PW.23), Investigating Officer, gave full details
of lodging an FIR at midnight and explained all steps taken           F
during the investigation, recoveries referred to here-in-above,
recording of statements of witnesses under Section 161
Cr.P.C., sending the recovered material for FSL report and
arrest of Darshan Singh, respondent-accused etc.

     13. Dr. Amarjeet Singh Chawla (PW.4) deposed that G
Geeta (PW.16) had asked him to give a telephone call to her
father and he had accordingly informed her father. After
sometime, her father Jaswant Singh (PW .1) had arrived on
scooter. In the cross-examination, he explained that Geeta
(PW.16) was dumb and deaf, however, could read and write H
    28       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A   and she had written the telephone number of her father as
    55172 and, thus, he could contact her father.

         14. The respondent-accused in his examination under
    Section 313 Cr.P.C .. denied all allegations. The trial court found
8   the evidence on record trustworthy and in view thereof,
    convicted the respondent-accused and sentenced him as
    referred to hereinabove.

       15. The High Court re-appreciated the entire evidence and
    came to the following conclusions:
c
         (I) There were major contradictions in ocular evidence and
    medical evidence. As per the statement of Geeta (PW.16),
    Kaku Singh, deceased and Darshan Singh, respondent-
    accused had consumed liquor in the evening but this was not
o   corroborated from medical evidence. Dr. Rajendra Gupta
    (PW.17) has admitted that there was nothing to show that
    deceased Kaku Singh had consumed liquor. Her version of
    giving a pill for intoxication of deceased could not be proved
    by medical evidence. The viscera was sent to Forensic
E   Science Laboratory but the report did not show that any sort of
    poison had been administered to the deceased.

          (II) The version of Geeta (PW.16) did not appear to be
    trustworthy as she deposed that Darshan Singh accused, Kaku
    Singh deceased and the witness had slept in the same room.
F   It was natural that a husband and wife would not allow a stranger
    to sleep with them, even if Darshan Singh, accused, was known
    to them. In view of the fact that relationship between Geeta and
    Chhindri Bhatni had never been cordial, it could not be believed
    that Geeta (PW.16) would permit the brother of Chhindri Bhatni
G   to sleep with them.

          (Ill) Geeta (PW.16) had admitted in her cross-examination
    that Chhindri Bhatni had 10 brothers and none of them had ever
    visited her house. Chhindri Bhatni was living in the same house
H   with deceased and Geeta. She further admitted that she had
   STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. DARSHAN SINGH @                      29
      DARSHAN LAL [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
never seen Darshan Singh, respondent-accused, prior to the A
date of incident. Even, she could not disclose the features of
the accused to the police. In such a fact-situation, the question
of sleeping all of them together could not arise.

     (IV) There could be no motive for Darshan Singh,               8
respondent-accused, to kill Kaku Singh, deceased for the
reason that even as per deposition of Geeta (PW.16), Kaku
Singh had severed the relationship with Chhindri Bhatni long
ago.

     (V) The name of Darshan Singh, respondent-accused, did C
not find place in the FIR. The accused persons had been
mentioned therein as Chhindri Bhatni and her brother.

     (VI) So far as the recovery of kulhari (Ext. P-12) is
concerned, even if believed, did not lead to any interference for   o
the simple reason that FSL report (Ext. P-64) revealed that there
was no human blood found on kulhari. Therefore, the evidence
of recovery of kulhari could not be used as incriminating
circumstance against the accused.

    (VII) The evidence on record revealed that Geeta (PW.16)        E
and Jaswant Singh (PW.1) were apprehending that Kaku Singh
deceased would alienate his irrigated land to Chhindri Bhatni
and, therefore, it became doubtful whether Darshan Singh,
respondent/accused could have any motive to kill Kaku Singh,
deceased.                                                           F

      (VIII) The evidence of Geeta (PW.16) was recorded in sign
language with the help of her father Jaswant Singh (PW.1).
Admittedly, neither she nor her father while acting as her
interpreter had been administered oath. The signs have been G
recorded alongwith its interpretation. There was possibility of
misinterpretation of the signs made by her, as her father could
do it purposely, the statement of Geeta (PW.16) did not inspire
confidence.
                                                                    H
    30        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A         (IX) Deposition of Geeta (PW.16) could not be relied upon
    as it was not safe for the court to embark upon the examination
    of deaf and dumb witness, on her information without the help
    of an expert or a person familiar of her mode of conveying ideas
    to others in day to day life. Further, such a person should not
B   be an interested person. In the instant case, Jaswant Singh
    (PW.1) had participated in the investigation and was an
    interested person.

        16. We have also gone through the entire evidence and
C   concur with the findings recorded by the High Court.

         Basic argument which has been advanced by both the
    parties before us is on the admissibility and credibility of sole
    eye-witness Geeta (PW.16).

D         Admittedly, Geeta (PW.16) had not been administered
    oath, nor Jaswant Singh (PW.1), her father who acted as
    interpreter when her statement was recorded in the court. In
    view of provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Oaths Act, 1969,
    it is always desirable to administer oath or statement may be
    recorded on affirmation of the witness. This Court in Ramesh war
E
    Slo Kalyan Singh v. The State of Rajasthan, AIR 1952 SC
    54, has categorically held that the main purpose of
    administering of oath to render persons who give false evidence
    liable to prosecution and further to bring home to the witness
    the solemnity of the occasion and to impress upon him the duty
F   of speaking the truth, further such matters only touch credibility
    and not admissibility.

         However, in view of the provisions of Section 7 of the
    Oaths Act, 1969, the omission of administration of oath or
G   affirmation does not invalidate any evidence.

         17. In M.P. Sharma & Ors. v. Satish Chandra, District
    Magistrate, Delhi & Ors., AIR 1954 SC 300, this Court held
    that a person can "be a witness" not merely by giving oral
H   evidence but also by producing documents or making
   STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. DARSHAN SINGH@                      31
      DARSHAN LAL [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
intelligible gestures as in the case of a dumb witness (See       A
Section 119 of the Evidence Act) or the like.

     18. The object of enacting the provisions of Section 119
of the Evidence Act reveals that deaf and dumb persons were
earlier contemplated in law as idiots. However, such a view has B
subsequently been changed for the reason that modern science
revealed that persons affected with such calamities are
generally found more intelligent, and to be susceptible to far
higher culture than one was once supposed. When a deaf and
dumb person is examined in the court, the court has to exercise C
due caution and take care to ascertain before he is examined
that he possesses the requisite amount of intelligence and that
he understands the nature of an oath. On being satisfied on this,
the witness may be administered oath by appropriate means
and that also be with the assistance of an interpreter. However,
in case a person can read and write, it is most desirable to D
adopt that method being more satisfactory than any sign
language. The law required that there must be a record of signs
and not the interpretation of signs.

     19. In Meesa/a Ramakrishan v. State of A.P., (1994) 4        E
sec 182, this Court has considered the evidentiary value of a
dying declaration recorded by means of signs and nods of a
person who is not in a position to speak for any reason and
held that the same amounts to a verbal statement and, thus, is
relevant and admissible. The Court further clarified that ·verbal' F
statement does not amount to ·oral' statement. In view of the
provisions of Section 119 of the Evidence Act, the only
requirement is that witness may give his evidence in any
manner in which he can make it intelligible, as by writing or by
signs and such evidence can be deemed to be oral evidence G
within the meaning of Section 3 of the Evidence Act. Signs and
gestures made by nods or head are admissible and such nods
and gestures are not only admissible but possess evidentiary
value.

                                                                  H
    32        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A         20. Language is much more than words. Like all other
    languages, communication by way of signs has some inherent
    limitations, since it may be difficult to comprehend what the user
    is attempting to convey. But a dumb person need not be
    prevented from being a credible and reliable witness merely
B   due to his/her physical disability. Such a person though unable
    to speak may convey himself through writing if literate or through
    signs and gestures if he is unable to read and write.

         A case in point is the silent movies which were understood
C   widely because they were able to communicate ideas to people
    through novel signs and gestures. Emphasised body language
    and facial expression enabled the audience to comprehend the
    intended message.

         21. To sum up, a deaf and dumb person is a competent
D   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 desir~ble 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
E   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.

         22. In the instant case, there is sufficient material on record
F
    that Geeta (PW.16) 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
G   the same in writing.

         23. 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
H   assisted during the trial, investigation and was examined
   STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. DARSHAN SINGH @                         33
      DARSHAN LAL [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

without administering oath, made the evidence unreliable. In           A
such a fact-situation, the High Court has rightly given the benefit
of doubt and acquitted the respondent.

       24. We are fully aware of our limitation to interfere with an
order against acquittal. In exceptional cases where there are
                                                                       B
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.     C
Interference in a routine manner where the other view is
possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for
interference.

     25. If we examine the judgment of the High Court in light
of the aforesaid legal proposition, we do not find it to be a fit      D
case to interfere with the order of acquittal.

       The appeal lacks merit and, is accordingly, dismissed.

N.J.                                           Appeal dismissed.