Take due care while cross-examining deaf, mute: Delhi HC

The court held that for such a witness it may not be possible to answer in detail everything by sign language.

Published: 15th June 2016 05:10 AM  |   Last Updated: 15th June 2016 05:10 AM   |  A+A-

NEW DELHI: In an important ruling the Delhi High Court came to the rescue of a hearing and speech impaired witness and said that when such a witness is cross-examined, the court is required to take due care of the fact that vocabulary of such a person is limited as he or she speaks via sign language.

The court held that for such a witness it may not be possible to answer in detail everything by sign language. And this disability of limited vocabulary of sign language does not affect either the competence or the credibility of such a witness.

The ruling came in the case in which a 12-year-old deaf and mute girl as sexually assaulted by the accused, who convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2002.

Justice Mukta Gupta while disposing an appeal by the accused quoted the apex court ruling which stated, “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 speech impaired person need not be prevented from being a credible and reliable witness merely 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.”

“Such a person is a competent 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 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. 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,” the court said while sentencing the accused to five years jail.


Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp