Supreme Court Mulls Framing Guidelines For Trial Against Accused With Hearing & Speech Disabilities
In a significant development, the Supreme Court (on April 16) observed that it has yet to establish guidelines for conducting trials against accused with hearing and speech disabilities. In this regard, the Top Court has issued notice to Union of India through the Attorney General to examine this question of law and posted the matter on July 26. “However, it is brought to our notice...
In a significant development, the Supreme Court (on April 16) observed that it has yet to establish guidelines for conducting trials against accused with hearing and speech disabilities. In this regard, the Top Court has issued notice to Union of India through the Attorney General to examine this question of law and posted the matter on July 26.
“However, it is brought to our notice that this Court has not laid down so far the parameters and guidelines for conducting trial against a deaf-and-dumb accused, who is otherwise of sound mind and medically fit to commit a heinous offence like rape.”
The bench of Justices Surya Kant and K.V Vishwanathan was hearing an appeal against the conviction of one Ramnarayan Manhar, who was guilty of raping two minor girls aged 7 and 8 years. The accused was a relative of one of the victim girls.
Though the trial court convicted the perpetrator, the matter was forwarded to the High Court as the accused, being deaf and dumb, was not able to understand the proceedings. The same was done in light of Section 318 of the CrPC. As per this provision, if the accused, though not of unsound mind, cannot be made to understand the proceedings and is convicted by the Trial Court, the proceedings shall be forwarded to the High Court. Pertinently, the Trial Court, in its judgment, had also specified that though the accused is deaf and dumb, he is not a person of unsound mind, or he is not 'insane' in these circumstances.
The High Court, after going through the testimonies of the witnesses, evidence including the medical evidence which corroborated the heinous act, convicted the accused person for attempting to commit rape. Against this conviction, the accused approached the Top Court.
After perusing the material on record, the Division Bench concluded that it was “prima facie satisfied” with the findings of the Trial and the High Court. That being so, the conviction and consequential sentence awarded to the petitioner seems to be justified., the Court added.
Against this backdrop, the Court made the above observation and ultimately refused to grant the accused any relief while declining his bail.
Case Title: RAMNARAYAN MANHAR v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH., Diary No.- 15153 – 2024