Gujarat Court Acquits Hearing & Speech Impaired Murder Accused, Engages Experts To Aid In Trial

In a major determination, a classes court docket in Ahmedabad, Gujarat not too long ago acquitted a listening to and verbally impaired man accused of a lady’s homicide whereas taking assist of particular wants and language specialists within the discipline with a purpose to clarify the court docket proceedings to the accused.

Shivchandra Tamil, working as a labourer at Ahmedabad railway station–who initially belongs to Tamil Nadu–was accused of the homicide of a lady who was purportedly listening to and verbally impaired, after she allegedly refused to have sexual activity with him.

Thus, with a purpose to clarify the court docket proceedings to the acused the court docket of Extra Principal Periods Choose SL Thakker additionally requested Particular Educator for listening to and verbally impaired individuals G. Suresh to be current throughout the trial by way of video convention from Tamil Nadu.

Notably, the court docket of Choose Thakker has been specifically designated to listen to issues as per Part 84 of the Rights of Individuals with Disabilities Act (RPwD), 2016.

Moreover, Assistant Authorized Assist Defence Counsel M. Gokulakrishnan who is aware of Tamil had joined the proceedings by way of video conferencing from Madurai, Tamil Nadu to assist the accused.

Together with this, throughout the cost framing proceedings, each the specialists in addition to advocate Ajay Choksi–who ‘pro-bono’ appeared for the accused–and Dr. Elizabeth Christian, an professional in Tamil and resident of Ahmedabad was additionally current, who translated Tamil into English throughout the court docket proceedings.

The court docket in its June 3 order famous that with the assistance of those people, the judicial proceedings, its process and the fees framed towards the accused have been defined to him (para 4).

Case briefly

The prosecution alleged that the accused had requested the deceased girl to have sexual activity with him, and when the sufferer refused, he attacked her by inflicting blows to her stomach with a knife, killed her and thereafter fled from the scene.

Because the Investigating Officer didn’t perceive signal language, the help of an indication language professional (Ashwinbhai Vegda) was sought, and it was by way of him that each one the knowledge regarding the alleged homicide and the accused’s alleged admission of getting dedicated the crime was obtained by the IO.

Interpreter didn’t perceive Tamil, not dependable witness

The Courtroom, nevertheless, discovered a number of loopholes within the testimony of Vegda because it famous that although he claimed to have communicated with the accused utilizing signal language, there was no report of the bodily postures or gestures utilized by both get together, nor any affirmation that the accused understood these gestures.

“There isn’t a point out within the panchnama (official report) of what gestures Mr. Ashwinbhai Vegda used to speak with the accused, how he conveyed the questions, and what gestures the accused used to answer”, the Courtroom’s order reads [para 28.2].

The court docket additionally famous that the panchnamas associated to the arrest, discovery of weapon and crime scene reconstruction contained no such data, and that no videography was offered in court docket to assist these interactions.

After perusing the report and the testimonies, the court docket in its order amongst numerous observations, famous that the Investigating Officer had admitted to not following the solutions made by FSL on videography, images of the incident spot and to additionally make a tough sketch of the identical.

The court docket additional famous that the investigating officer didn’t make any inquiry as as to if the interpreter/signal language professional engaged by the prosecution was educated in Tamil language.

The court docket additional noticed that the interpreter admitted that he didn’t converse Tamil or Tamil signal language, and thus, it famous, the way in which wherein he questioned the accused, who doesn’t converse Gujarati or perceive signal language raises a doubt and he doesn’t look like credible and dependable witness.

The court docket stated that there was no point out within the Panchnama about what sort of gestures the interpreter used to speak to the accused and what posture he confirmed when asking questions and what posture the accused confirmed in response to him.

IO didn’t interrogate himself, no impartial witnesses

The court docket famous that the IO himself didn’t “personally interrogate” the accused and as per the IO, the accused was interrogated by way of the interpreter who allegedly understood the signal language of the verbally impaired individuals; thus IO obtained to know of all the main points by way of the interpreter.

The court docket thereafter famous that the interpreter in his testimony didn’t state that the accused had demanded bodily intercourse from the deceased on the evening of the incident and had murdered her when she refused.

The court docket noticed that the IO had not defined as to the place all these particulars got here from. It stated that because the IO himself doesn’t know any signal language or perceive Tamil, there was no risk of him having questioned the accused on his personal.

It famous that within the current case, no eyewitnesses have been discovered throughout the investigation and there have been no impartial proof concerning this incident discovered throughout the investigation.

The court docket thus stated that the allegation made towards the accused that he murdered an unknown girl as a result of she refused to have bodily intercourse seems to be fabricated and baseless. If such a severe allegation is discovered to be baseless, then naturally all the investigation course of will seem suspicious and corrupt, the order notes.

“…therefore, the allegation seems fabricated and baseless. Such a severe accusation, when discovered to be with out foundation, naturally casts doubt and suspicion on all the investigative course of,” the order notes.

The court docket additional rejected the prosecution’s rivalry on restoration and seizure of the alleged weapon and noticed that Vegda (interpreter) had clearly acknowledged that the police had already seized the garments and knife earlier than, and the accused didn’t produce this stuff in his presence.

The court docket thus stated that the alleged seizure of the weapon used within the crime, which the investigating company had proven within the cost sheet gave the impression to be fabricated.

The Courtroom was additionally of the opinion that the invention of the weapon had not been correctly established. It discovered the declare of the IO to be ‘absurd’ that the accused dug a pit and buried the knife after committing the crime.

“Any particular person with primary widespread sense would query: why would somebody bury a weapon like a knife close to a criminal offense scene after committing a criminal offense? It might be extra possible that he would discard it close by or throw it away removed from the scene. However no affordable particular person would cover the weapon in such a cautious method that it might conveniently be retrieved later upon police demand. This means a fabricated narrative geared toward implicating the accused with a purpose to resolve a criminal offense that occurred inside their jurisdiction,” the court docket famous.

The court docket additional underscored that if the accused was interrogated in presence of the interpreter then in such circumstances it was essential to videograph the identical, and solely then can the court docket attain a conclusion as to wherein signal language and in what method the interpreter questioned the accused and the way the accused replied to him.

In opposition to this backdrop, noting that all the investigation course of gave the impression to be tainted and suspicious, the court docket added that the testimony of the Investigating Officer can’t be thought of free from affordable doubt, and it will not be applicable or advisable to seek out the accused responsible primarily based on such testimony.

Thus, whereas acquitting the accused, the court docket additionally thanked the contribution of the specialists who had been engaged to assist the accused within the conduct of the trial (para 5 web page 63).

Background

The accused was charged for homicide beneath IPC Part 302. The accused denied the cost by giving an announcement; therefore the case was positioned for prosecution’s proof pursuant to which the trial continued. Notably, the Supreme Courtroom had on November 8, 2024 (in Particular Depart to Enchantment (Cr.) No.- 12244/2024) additionally ordered a expeditious trial within the case.

Because the case pertained to a classes trial the magisterial court docket dedicated the case to the Periods court docket.

Advocate Ajaykumar Choksi showing for the accused argued that the IO didn’t know signal language in both Tamil or Gujarati or English and didn’t interrogate the accused himself. He argued that the police additionally didn’t examine if the accused knew signal language and no medical examination was performed to evaluate the quantum of disabilities. Additional no videography or images of the accused’s interrogation was performed nor the drawing of the panchnama was captured. It was additionally argued that accused doesn’t perceive Gujarati and interpreter doesn’t perceive Tamil therefore the so referred to as further judicial confession made in Gujarati was untenable.

The State argued that each one the offence alleged was severe and all of the panchnamas have been correctly proved by the testimony of the investigating officer. The alleged weapon used within the crime has been seized by the investigating company from the place indicated by the accused. It was argued that discovery beneath Part 27, Indian Proof Act has been correctly proved. It was additionally claimed that as per the medical proof the deceased was killed by stabbing. It was alleged that when the accused was questioned within the presence of the interpreter he had allegedly confessed to having dedicated the crime. Thus, the prosecution claimed that because the extrajudicial confession of the accused was current the accused should be punished the appropriately.

Case title: Shivchandra v/s State of Gujarat

Counsel for accused: Advocates Ajaykumar Chimanlal Choksi and Aditya Choksi

Counsel for State: Extra Public Prosecutor G.P. Dave