STATE Vs. MOOKAMMA ALIAS YELLAMMA AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Revision Case No. 8 of 1962 is a referenca made by the Second Magistrate, Chitradurga, In C.C. No. 3512/61 on his file. The circumstances of the case are as follows :The Thuruvanur police submitted a charge sheet to the Court on 26-10-1961 against the accused Mookamma alias Vellamma for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. on the allegation that on 10-10-61 at about noon when the accused was crossing the stream known as 'Janigehal'a' near Chickondanahally village she was carrying a bundle of fodder on her shoulder, the deceased Ismail, aged about 10 years, tried to snatch a stalk of hay from the bundle and the accused, getting enraged by this act of the deceased, hit him with the sickle which she had in her hand on his chest as a result of which the deceased sustained a bleeding injury and fell in the stream. Immediately thereafter a companion of his, Munavarulla by name, dragged the injured boy to the shore and poured water into his mouth. Soon afterwards Ismail breathed his last. When the accused was produced before the Court, it appeared to the learned Magistrate that she was totally deaf and dumb. To assure himself about the matter the District Surgeon, Chitradurga, was requested to examine her. As the latter was not able to give a definite opinion, he suggested that she may be examined by a specialist. The Ear, Nose and Throat Specialist of the Victoria Hospital examined the accused and found that she was totally deaf and that she was unable to speak as she was a deaf-mute. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, no Counsel apoeared for the accused and the Court found that the accused was not able to understand the proceedings. Her husband, who was present in Court, was appointed to interpret the evidence of the eye witnesses to the accused and he was asked to be present on every day of the hearing. The prosecution examined three persons who were stated to be eye witnesses and on the closing of the prosecution case, the circumstances appearing in the evidence were attempted to be explained to her by means of signs by her husband. But the learned Magistrate says that she was unable to understand anything. Thereafter a charge for an offence under Section 302, I.P.C. was framed against the accused. The learned Magistrate adds that as the accused could not understand any question put by the Court, she was not asked to put up a list of witnesses to bo summoned to give evidence in her trial.

(2.) In the course of the resume the learned Magistrate has given the substance of the evidence given by the three eye-witnesses, namely, by Munavarulla already referred to above, and two other boys, Nazir and Tippusullhan by name who were also playing near the stream at the time. They all speak to the incident as mentioned above. The post-mortem examination showed a deep cut wound on the left side of the chest penetrating into the heart. According to the Medical Officer, who conducted the post-mortem examination, the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury to the heart. In the light of these circumstances the learned Magistrate was of the opinion that the prosecution had prima facie established that the accused had caused such bodily injury as she knew would likely cause the death and made an order of committal under Section 207-A Cr.P.C. to stand her trial for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. before the Court of Session. In a separate reference the learned Magistrate narrates the steps he took by way of referring the matter to the District Surgeon Chitradurga, and to the E.N.T. Specialist, Victoria Hospital to ascertain the physical condition of the accused. He also refers to appointing the accused's husband to interpret to her the evidence. He says:

(3.) CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO. 9/1962 is a Reference made by the Learned Munsif Magistrate, Holenarasipur, under Section 341 Cr.P.C. submitting the records in C.C. No. 865 of 1961 on his file. The accused in the case was charge-sheeted by the Chennsrayapalna Police alleging that tie had committed an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. on 2-8-1961 by intentionally causing the death of his mother by throttling her. The learned Magistrals found that the accused was a deaf-mute. This is also certified by the Medical Officer in charge of the L.F. Dispensary, Bagur. The Court sought the help of a teacher in the School for Deaf and Blind boys at Mysore to interpret the proceedings of the Court to the accused. The teacher, while stating that he would be able to communicate with the accused, appears to have expressed the view that in order to explain matters fully to the accused it would be advisable to go to the spot. Accordingly the learned Magistrate, made a reference to the District Magistrate, Hassan, seeking permission to conduct the proceedings at the spot. The District Magistrate was of the view that the Munsiff-Magistrate should give a definite finding that the accused was unable to understand the Court proceedings and exercise his discretion under Section 341 Cr.P.C. Then the Munsiff Magistrate made a further reference seeking permission again as he felt that in the interests of justice, it was necessary to visit the spot so that the accused could have the circumstances explained to him. The learned District Magistrate, however thought that what was sought to be done was in the nature of local inspection under Section 539 Cr.P.C., but amounted1 to holding the Court at the spot and wanted the Munsiff-Magistrate to indicate the provision of law under which such a procedure could be adopted. The learned Munsiff-Magistrate did not find it possible to do so and proceeded to deal with the matter under Section 207-(A) Cr.P.C.