Skip to content


Emperor Vs. a Deaf and Dumb Accused - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1916)ILR40Bom598
AppellantEmperor
RespondentA Deaf and Dumb Accused
Excerpt:
criminal procedure, code (act v of 1808), section 311 - deaf and dumb accused--procedure and practice. - - in this case we are satisfied from the learned magistrate's judgment that he was right in finding that the accused understood the nature of the act which he was committing when he committed this theft......appears to be that though great caution and diligence are necessary in the trial of a deaf and dumb person, yet if it be shown that such person had sufficient intelligence to understand the character of his criminal act, he is liable to punishment: see russell on crimes, vol. i, p. 62, archbold's criminal practice p. 11 and the king v. elizabeth steel. (1787) 1 leach 451 queen v. bowka hari (1874) 22 w.r. 35 and the. queen-empress v. reubin samuel (1894) cri. cas. 696 are authorities to show that the same is the law and practice in india. in this case we are satisfied from the learned magistrate's judgment that he was right in finding that the accused understood the nature of the act which he was committing when he committed this theft.3. we, therefore, confirm the conviction and.....
Judgment:

Batchelor, J.

1. In this case the accused, a deaf and dumb man, has been convicted of theft under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code, and the proceedings have been submitted to this Court, under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

2. Section 341 provides that in such a case as this the High Court should pass such orders as it thinks fit. The law in England appears to be that though great caution and diligence are necessary in the trial of a deaf and dumb person, yet if it be shown that such person had sufficient intelligence to understand the character of his criminal act, he is liable to punishment: see Russell on Crimes, Vol. I, p. 62, Archbold's Criminal Practice p. 11 and The King v. Elizabeth Steel. (1787) 1 Leach 451 Queen v. Bowka Hari (1874) 22 W.R. 35 and The. Queen-Empress v. Reubin Samuel (1894) Cri. Cas. 696 are authorities to show that the same is the law and practice in India. In this case we are satisfied from the learned Magistrate's judgment that he was right in finding that the accused understood the nature of the act which he was committing when he committed this theft.

3. We, therefore, confirm the conviction and sentence the accused to one month's rigorous imprisonment.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //