IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CRMMO No.256 of 2010 Date of decision : January 4, 2011 Vijay Singh …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner and three other persons, who are instructors in a school for deaf and dumb, being run by an NGO, are facing trial, under Sections 376 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, for allegedly committing the aforesaid crimes against deaf and dumb students of the institution. 3. Petitioner has approached this Court, for issuance of a direction to the trial Court that some independent interpreter to interpret the signs of the deaf and dumb, alleged victims of the crimes, be engaged for interpreting the statements made by signs. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and other accused are themselves experts in interpreting the signs, they being instructors. However, the apprehension of the petitioner is Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… that the lady, who was engaged by the police as interpreter, during investigation, may not be interpreting the statements correctly, during trial, because of the bias of her having already interpreted their signs in a particular manner, during investigation. 4. Petitioner and the other accused themselves being experts in the skill can point to the Court their objections, in case there is any misinterpretation by the interpreting witness. Also, there can be video filming of the statements of the deaf and dumb witnesses, so that in case of any dispute services of a third interpreter can be requisitioned to give interpretation, based on video filming. 5. Taking into consideration the abovestated position, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court that in case the petitioner and other accused are prepared to bear the expenses of video filming of the recording of statements of deaf and dumb witnesses, in the case, that shall be permitted and trial Court shall also keep a complete record of objections, if any, of the petitioner and other accused, with regard to the interpretation of signs of deaf and dumb witnesses, as done by the interpreter, sought to be produced by the prosecution for interpretation of signs of deaf and dumb witnesses. 6. Pending application stands disposed of, having become infructuous. Copy dasti. January 4, 2011(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J