PADMNABHAN NAIR NARAYANAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference under Section 341, Criminal Procedure Code, made by the learned First Class Magistrate of Ponkunnam who committed the accused in P. E. No. III of 1953 on the file of his Court for trial before the Court of Sessions for committing an offence of murder. The accused is deaf and dumb and he was horn so. He stood charged with the murder of his uncle. Before the preliminary enquiry commenced lis counsel presented a petition stating that the accused was deaf and dumb, that he was unable to understand the proceedings in court and that he should therefore be got medicaily examined and a certificate obtained regarding his. capacity to understand the proceedings. In complying with the request the learned Magistrate sent the accused for observation by the Medical Officer in charge of the Government Hospital at Kanjirappally and after keeping him under observation for eight days the Medical Officer reported that he was deaf and dumb and unable to hear and reply questions put to him. Afterwards the Magistrate held an enquiry ss to the physical and mental capacities oE the accused, by examining the said Medical Officer as also a close relation of the accused and a close neighbour. The Medical Officer's evidence was to the effect that the accused was not able to understand the questions put to him while the evidence of the other witnesses went to show that by long practice they were able to talk with the accused by signs and sounds on routine matters and understand his signs and sounds, but that it was impossible for them to make him understand the proceedings in court and he cannot understand them. On the strength of the evidence the learned Magistrate passed an order as follows.

(2.) The preliminary enquiry was conducted by the successor-in-office of the Magistrate who passed the above order. There are no eye-witnesses in the case to prove the occurrence. Certain portions of the committal order may with advantage be quoted here:

(3.) 'Prima facie' the result of the initial enquiry warranted the invocation of the provisions of Section 341 for holding the preliminary enquiry as also the trial. However, we doubt whether the same result follows from the evidence recorded at the preliminary enquiry. Regard being had to the provisions of Section 207 A (4) no useful purpose would appear to us to be likely to come out by quashing the committal and directing a fresh enquiry. We would therefore dispose of the reference by giving the learned trial Judge such directions as we think proper to ensure a fair trial of the case.