The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that an accused cannot evade mandatory examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in an attempt to vitiate trial, by "pretending" to be deaf and dumb. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 244]The division bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Pushpendra Yadav made the observation while suspecting that a POCSO convict had, prima facie, exaggerated...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that an accused cannot evade mandatory examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in an attempt to vitiate trial, by "pretending" to be deaf and dumb. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 244]
The division bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Pushpendra Yadav made the observation while suspecting that a POCSO convict had, prima facie, exaggerated his hearing disability to avoid the criminal justice process.
Briefly put, the trial court had convicted the Respondent of rape of a 7-year-old minor girl. The conviction was recorded without complying with Section 313 CrPC which mandates examination of accused, as the Respondent/accused claimed to be deaf and dumb, and unable to understand the Court proceedings. Since Section 318 CrPC requires such a conviction to be placed before the High Court, the trial court had made the present reference.
After going through the material on record, the High Court suspected that the Respondent had "faked" the disability to cause himself prejudice during the trial and take advantage of it later.
"The allegations are serious in nature, and an accused in such circumstances cannot escape the wrath of the proceedings by cleverly managing to represent himself as deaf and dumb or as a person who cannot understand the proceedings held against him. A cautious approach is required. Victim's rights are also required to be seen," it said.
The Court thus modified the conviction and directed the trial court to ensure an opportunity under Section 313 CrPC to the respondent, "so that the trial may not later on be vitiated on the pretext of non-examination of the accused."
Per the facts of the case, the Trial Court framed charges, which were denied by the accused through its counsel. During the prosecution's witness, the accused prayed that his examination be conducted by a medical board/officer on the grounds that he was mute and deaf. During the examination, the medical board, along with sign language experts were called, but the accused claimed that he was unable to understand the questions being asked during the examination.
Thus, the Trial Court, following the judgment in the case of State of Chattisgarh v Deepak Kumar Sahu [(2007) 1 MPHT 80], passed the conviction without examining the accused under Section 313 CrPC. The judgment deals with the applicability of Section 318 of the CrPC, which outlines the procedure to be followed during a trial if the accused is of unsound mind or unable to understand the court proceedings.
The case outlined the two explicit parameters which are to be considered by the Trial Court while referring to Section 318 CrPC. The first being a reference made by the court explicitly recording that the accused cannot be made to understand court proceedings, despite the best efforts. The second being that the Trial Court must ensure that the accused is not of unsound mind, as it would invoke provisions of Chapter 25 of the CrPC. Once the Trial Court is satisfied with the aforementioned requirements, the Trial Court can validly proceed with the trial, and skip recording the accused's statement under Section 313 and pass judgment based on the evaluation of the prosecution evidence.
The court also examined the medical opinion wherein it was recorded that the accused is not totally deaf and can understand a conversation using Hearing Aid of amplification. The court also considered the AIIMS report showing that he is suffering from severe to profound hearing loss and using a hearing aid would help him, but due to the accused's non-compliance, definite results could not be provided.
Relying on the medical report stating the accused to be malingering but is of sound mind, the bench held that the accused was "faking hearing loss prima facie", on the ground that the conduct can be deciphered from the previous conviction against the accused for the sexual offence itself.
Further, emphasizing that the accused was "faking or exaggerating his physical deformity to gain advantage", the court highlighted:
"Non-disclosure of previous antecedents itself doubts the conduct of the respondent/accused and as he has not approached with clean hands and thus, no benefit could be availed by as it is his deliberate omission to state previous conviction before the trial court because while applying for bail before the trial court, the respondent/accused has not mentioned his previous antecedents which speaks volume about the conduct of the respondent/accused".
Case Title: In re: State of Madhya Pradesh v Kalyan Raikwar, CRIMINAL REFERENCE NO. 01 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 244
For State: Additional Advocate General Deependra Singh Kushwaha
For Amicus Curiae: Senior Advocate R.K. Sharma with Advocate Bhavya Sharma