Criminal Revision No. 1261 of 2007 Kartar Singh vs. Pawan Kumar and another Present:- Mr. Vinod Khunger, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Hemender Goswami, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. A.S. Brar, DAG Punjab. ---- This order will dispose of two revision petitions. The petitioner had lodged an FIR against the respondent Pawan Kumar for offence under Section 376 IPC with the allegation that the respondent had established relationship with his daughter, who is deaf and dumb and on account thereof she became pregnant. She has also given birth to a female child. What a pity for the parents of this handicap girl. The FIR against the respondent was registered for offence under Section 376 IPC. The prosecution has led evidence but the prosecutrix being deaf and dumb could not be examined as a witness because of her physical handicap. The prosecution without proper application of mind closed its case and the respondent then entered his defence. The Public Prosecutor seems to have realised the goof-up and moved an application for grant of permission for examining the prosecutrix, through some expert, who can read and interpret her version to the Court This prayer is declined. This order is impugned by the complainant as well as by the State through the present revision petitions. Criminal Revision No. 1261 of 2007 -2- Sessions Judge, Ferozepur while declining this prayer, apparently has not appreciated the sensitivity of the issue involved. He was required to inform himself that it is a case of deaf and dumb proscutrix. The sexual intercourse of the girl is clear and apparent as it has led to her pregnancy and birth of child. Only requirement is to find if the accused is one, who is responsible for this act and thus liable for an offence under Section 376 IPC. It is not possible to accept that court can be helpless in recording the evidence of deaf and dumb person. The language, which can be communicated through signs is a well developed science. There will be number of experts available in this regard who can understand the questions and answers given by the witness, who is deaf and dumb. In fact this court on 17.08.2007 had issued direction to the prosecution to take the prosecutrix before a deaf and dumb expert in communication and see if she is in a position to make some gesture to record her version. Pursuant to this order, a report has been received, a copy of which is handed over by State counsel today. The same is kept on record as Mark-A. Perusal of the expert report would show that he has met the prosecutrix in the presence of SHO in terms of the directions issued by this court. The prosecutrix Soma was able to convey her version to him by means of signs and has stated that after closing the door, he took of her clothes and done a bad work with her without her consent. The expert has further disclosed that the witness stated that she can give identity of the person, who had done this bad work with her. By signs, she could not however give the identity of such a person. Obviously, it Criminal Revision No. 1261 of 2007 -3- would not have been possible for her to give identity of a person with the help of signs. She would certainly be in a position to identify a person, who has done this act with her in case he is brought before her. Examination of such an expert ideally should take place before the Court. It is now noticed that it is possible to record the version of prosecutrix with the help of an expert. The evidence of the prosecutrix, if recorded in this manner, would be a mode permissible under law. It would be her oral evidence. Oral evidence can be of a fact which can be perceived by any sense, or in any other manner but has to be the evidence of a witness, who says he perceived it by that sense or in that manner. Accordingly, the impugned order whereby the prayer of the prosecution is declined, cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial court. The trial court can summon the expert as a witness and for this purpose fix the case with notice to the parties. On that date, the prosecutrix Soma would also be called. To ensure accuracy of the evidence, the Court will record each question addressed to the prosecutrix by the parties through the expert and her version be recorded in question/answer form. Whatever answer is given by the prosecutrix by way of signs and other methods would be recorded as such as answer to such question. The prosecutrix could be asked to identify if the accused is the one, who had done bad act with her which is a permissible mode of getting any accused identified before the court. The prosecution and the defence would Criminal Revision No. 1261 of 2007 -4- be entitled to address question in this manner to the prosecutrix through the expert available and summoned for this purpose. The court would examine the expert on oath while acting to interpret the evidence of the prosecutrix. The present revision petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. Let the parties through their counsel be appeared before the Trial Court on 15.10.2008. September 25, 2008. (RANJIT SINGH) vj JUDGE