The Crown vs Naru

Harnam Singh, J.—This is a reference by Pundit Inder Kishan Wali, Special Magistrate, Fazilka, u/s 841, Criminal P. 0,

The facts, so far as mater ial are these: Maru is being prosecuted u/s 302, Penal Code for causing the death of Mohan a on the night between 16th and 17th March 1949. In the Court of commitment evidence was examined between 14th May 1949 and 7th September 1949. On l1th September 1949 Maru accused was examined u/s 842, Criminal P.C. By his order dated 12th September 1919, the committing Magistrate found "considering the case on the whole, it is quite apparent to me that a prima facie case baa been made out against the accused, who is accordingly committed to the court of Seat-ion to stand trial there, u/s 302, Penal Code."

The order of the Magistrate passed on 11th May 1949 shows that Maru accused is very hard of hearing but that be is intelligent enough to understand the nature of the proceedings against him.

How, in forwarding the proceedings to the High Court u/s 341 the Court below is re- quired to make a report of the circumstances of the case and to record a finding as to whether the accused can understand the purpose or nature of the judicial proceedings that have been taken against him. Clearly, 8341 is intended to provide for cases where the accused is unable to understand the proceedings through deafness or dumbness, or through ignorance of language 0 the country and the want of an interpreter. In other words, the proceedings to be forwarded to the High Court, are proceedings relating to an accused person who'' cannot be made to under-stand the proceedings, though not insane-

In the present case the committing Magistrate hag not drawn up a formal report of the circumstances of the case and SaB given no find-ing that the accused cannot be made to understand the proceedings.

Before proceeding with the enquiry the Court below tried to get into communication with Maru accused with the assistance of his relations. The Court then made an enquiry as to the manner in which Maru accused was communicated with in the ordinary affairs of his life and upon that enquiry found that the accused was communicated with in the village by signh only and that Vishnu Datt Bishnoi of village Bazidpore was the proper person to give help to the Court for the reason that the accused had been living and taking his meals mostly with Vishnu Datt Bishnoi. Then, Mt, Goran P.W. 1a why married Maru accused in 1946 and lived with him for months describing the incident in question stated:

I saw Maru near the window of any house with a pistol in his hand. He ran away after telling ma that he had killed Mohna and that now I should have taste of the marriage with Mohna deceased.

Mt. Goran, it may here be mentioned, had married Mohna on her desertion by Maru accused and had two sons from Mohna when she gave evidence at the trial on 6th August 1949. Mt. Goran P.W. 13 stated in her evidence that Maru was deaf but was not dumb.

Then it appears that Maru was able to understand the proceedings that were being taken against him. In the order committing the accused to stand his trial in the Court of Session, the committing Magistrate saya:

The accused has by making signs in open Court denied his guilt and attributed his implicity in this case to the police. Let me observe here that the accused though quite hard of hearing is really not quite dumb as stated by Mat. Goran and Teju Pain P.Ws. in the witness box and I should think he is in fact pretending to be dumb.

On the facts stated by the committing Magistrate, the case does not come within Section 841, Criminal P.C. Section 341 reads:

If the accused though not insane, cannot be mode to understand the proceedings, the Court may proceed with the enquiry or trial; and, in the case of a Court other (ban an High Court, it such enquiry results in commitment, or if Buch a trial results in a conviction, the proceedings shall be forwarded to the High Court with a report of the circumstances of the case, and the High Court shall pass thereon such order as it thinks fit.

As stated above, where a deaf or dumb person is committed to stand his trial in the Court of Session a reference has to be made u/s 341, Criminal P.C. as a measure of astra precaution so that the High Court may satisfy itself that, under the circumstances, it was & fair enquiry and give directions as to how the trial may proceed in the Court of Session. Authority for this view is to be found in Emperor v. Ulfat Singh AIR 1947 All. 301 : 1947 A. L. J. 73. In the present Oase, there is ample material for a finding that the accused can be made to understand the proceedings and that being so, the case does not come with Section 841 and I direct that this case should be dealt with in the ordinary way.

Considering, however, that the accused is hard of hearing I order that special arrange, ments should be made at the cost of Government to communicate with the accused so that such defence may be put up at the trial as the accused may desire.