Section 119 of IEA

Introduction

Section 119 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with witnesses who are unable to communicate verbally. This Section was amended in the year 2013 on the basis of the recommendations given by Justice J.S Verma Committee.

Section 119 of IEA

• This Section stated that a witness who is unable to speak may give his evidence in any other manner in which he can make it intelligible, as by writing or by signs; but such writing must be written and the signs made in open Court, evidence so given shall be deemed to be oral evidence.
• Provided that if the witness is unable to communicate verbally, the Court shall take the assistance of an interpreter or a special educator in recording the statement, and such statement shall be video graphed.
• The meaning of word unable to communicate verbally in the proviso to Section 119 of the IEA means unable to communicate in writing and can communicate only through signs.
• It is for those category of persons who are unable to speak and can't communicate in writing that the proviso would apply.
• As per the proviso the Courts shall take the assistance of the interpreter and such recording of such statement shall be videographed. This is a mandate that the Courts have to strictly comply that.

Effect of the Section

• It applies to the cases of people who are unable to speak due to physical deformity.
• A witness who has taken a religious vow of silence should be deemed to be unable to speak within the meaning of this Section.
• When a deaf and dumb person is examined in the Court, the Court has to exercise due caution and care.
• When a deaf-dumb is a witness, the Court will ascertain before he is examined that he possesses the required amount of intelligence and understands the nature of an oath.

Case Laws

• In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Darshan Singh (2012), the Supreme Court held that language is much more than words. Like all other languages, communication by way of signs has some inherent limitations, since it may be difficult to comprehend what the user is attempting to convey. But a dumb person need not be prevented from being a credible and reliable witness merely due to his/her physical ability. Such a person, though unable to speak, may convey himself through writing, if literate, or through signs and gestures, if he is unable to read and write.
• In the case of Chander Singh v. State (2016) the High Court of Delhi observed that the vocabulary of a deaf and dumb witness may be very limited and due care must be taken when such a witness is under cross-examination.