Dumb Witness in Indian Evidence Act

The Indian legal system, like many others, strives to ensure that every individual has an opportunity to present their testimony before a court, irrespective of physical disabilities. One such group that the law protects includes individuals who cannot speak, often referred to as “dumb witnesses.” Section 119 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, specifically addresses how such witnesses can give testimony. This provision reflects the broader principle of equal access to justice, ensuring that individuals who cannot speak are not denied the opportunity to be heard.

This article discusses the concept of a dumb witness, how their testimony is handled under Indian law, and the judicial safeguards in place to ensure the integrity of their evidence.

Who is a Dumb Witness?

A dumb witness is someone who is physically incapable of speaking due to congenital conditions, illness, or injury. In the legal context, a “dumb witness” does not mean someone who lacks intelligence but rather refers to an individual who cannot give oral evidence because they are mute. Historically, the inability to speak might have been seen as a barrier to providing testimony. However, with evolving legal frameworks, such witnesses are given equal standing in court to present their evidence through alternative means.

The significance of testimony from every witness is central to the process of justice. Regardless of a witness’s ability to speak, their knowledge about the facts of a case can be crucial in helping the court reach a fair verdict. The law thus seeks to ensure that being mute does not result in exclusion from the legal process.

Legal Provisions Under Section 119 of the Indian Evidence Act

Section 119 of the Indian Evidence Act deals explicitly with how a dumb witness can testify in a court of law. The section states:

“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:

Provided that if the witness is unable to communicate verbally, the Court shall take the assistance of an interpreter or a special educator in recording the statement, and such statement shall be video graphed.”

This provision shows a few key aspects of how the testimony of a dumb witness is handled:

1. Alternative Modes of Communication: A dumb witness can give evidence through alternative means such as writing or using sign language. This ensures that the inability to speak does not bar a person from testifying. The law recognises that such individuals can still contribute valuable evidence through other means.
2. Courtroom Transparency: The written or signed statements must be made in open court, just like oral testimony. This ensures transparency in the judicial process, where the witness’s evidence is presented before the court in a visible and accountable manner.
3. Interpreter and Videography: The law allows the court to use an interpreter or special educator if the witness is communicating through signs. This ensures that the court accurately understands the testimony. To further ensure accuracy and fairness, the process is video recorded.

The idea behind Section 119 is to ensure that justice is accessible to all, and no one is denied the opportunity to testify based on a disability. By allowing alternative forms of communication, the law empowers individuals who cannot speak to be heard in the legal process.

The Role of the Court in Handling Dumb Witness Testimony

Handling testimony from a dumb witness requires the court to exercise caution and ensure that the witness’s communication is understood accurately. The court plays a pivotal role in ensuring that the testimony is valid and reliable. There are a few specific responsibilities that the court must fulfil when dealing with dumb witnesses:

Ensuring Competence 

Before a dumb witness can give evidence, the court must ensure that the witness understands the nature of the proceedings and has the requisite intelligence to testify. This is a critical step, as it ensures that the witness is not only able to communicate but also capable of comprehending the legal process. The court needs to assess whether the witness understands the importance of taking an oath and the consequences of giving false testimony.

Administering the Oath

Once the court is satisfied with the competence of the witness, it may administer the oath through appropriate means. This could involve an interpreter or educator helping the witness understand the oath if necessary. The oath is essential as it signifies that the witness is bound to tell the truth, just as any speaking witness would be.

Interpreter and Special Educator

In cases where the witness uses sign language, the court may require the assistance of an interpreter or a special educator to translate the signs into spoken words for the court to record. The interpreter’s role is to provide an accurate translation of the witness’s testimony without introducing bias or personal interpretation. The court must also ensure that the witness’s signs are recorded directly, not merely the interpreter’s version of the signs.

Preference for Writing

If a dumb witness can write, the court usually prefers written testimony over sign language because written evidence is seen as more precise and less prone to misinterpretation. This principle was emphasised in State of Rajasthan v. Darshan Singh (2012) 5 SCC 789, where the court noted that if a witness can read and write, it is more desirable to adopt that method rather than sign language, as written evidence is clearer and more reliable.

Cross-Examination of a Dumb Witness

Cross-examination is an integral part of any legal proceeding, as it allows the opposing side to challenge the testimony of a witness. When a dumb witness is cross-examined, certain considerations must be taken into account to ensure fairness.

1. Limits on Questioning: The court must ensure that the cross-examining party does not abuse the witness or ask irrelevant or unfair questions. Given the limited vocabulary of sign language, it may not be possible for a witness to respond to all questions in as much detail as a speaking witness could. The court must, therefore, control the cross-examination process to ensure that it remains fair and within the bounds of the law.
2. Limited Vocabulary: A witness who communicates through sign language may have a restricted vocabulary, making it challenging to answer every question with the same depth as a speaking witness. This does not, however, diminish the witness’s competence or credibility. The court must consider these limitations when evaluating the witness’s testimony. This principle was highlighted in Chander Singh v. State, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 3574, where the court emphasised that a witness’s inability to provide detailed explanations due to the limitations of sign language does not affect their credibility.

Landmark Cases on Dumb Witnesses

Several key judicial rulings in India have shaped how the courts handle testimony from dumb witnesses. Some notable cases include:

• State of Rajasthan v. Darshan Singh (2012): This case underscored the importance of using written testimony when a dumb witness is able to read and write. The court emphasised that written evidence is more accurate than sign language and should be preferred where possible.
• Chander Singh v. State (2016): This case dealt with the cross-examination of a dumb witness and highlighted the need for the court to control the process to ensure fairness. The court noted that the limitations of sign language do not affect the credibility of the witness, and it is essential to account for these limitations during cross-examination.

These cases demonstrate the Indian judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that dumb witnesses are treated fairly and their testimony is given the same weight as that of any other witness.

International Perspective on Dumb Witnesses

The concept of a dumb witness and the provisions for their testimony are not unique to India. Many countries have adopted similar measures to ensure that individuals with speech disabilities can provide evidence. For instance, the United States Federal Rules of Evidence allow individuals with disabilities to give testimony through interpreters or other appropriate means. The European Court of Human Rights also recognises the need to accommodate witnesses with disabilities to ensure a fair trial.

These international examples show that the legal principle of accommodating dumb witnesses is grounded in the broader principle of equal access to justice.

Conclusion

The provision for dumb witnesses in the Indian Evidence Act is a testament to the inclusivity of the legal system. Section 119 ensures that individuals who cannot speak are not deprived of their right to give evidence, allowing them to communicate through writing or sign language. The safeguards provided by the court, including the use of interpreters and video recording, ensure that their testimony is accurately understood and fairly treated.

By ensuring that dumb witnesses can testify, the legal system acknowledges the importance of every individual’s contribution to the judicial process. The law’s flexibility in allowing alternative means of communication reflects a commitment to justice and fairness for all, regardless of physical limitations. As the judiciary continues to evolve, the rights of dumb witnesses will remain a crucial aspect of ensuring equal access to justice.