'Fabricated & Baseless': Gujarat Court Acquits Hearing & Speech Impaired Murder Accused, Engages Experts To Aid In Trial

In a significant decision, a sessions court in Ahmedabad, Gujarat recently acquitted a hearing and verbally impaired man accused of a woman's murder while taking help of special needs and language experts in the field in order to explain the court proceedings to the accused. 

Shivchandra Tamil, working as a labourer at Ahmedabad railway station–who originally belongs to Tamil Nadu–was accused of the murder of a woman who was purportedly hearing and verbally impaired, after she allegedly refused to have sexual intercourse with him.

Thus, in order to explain the court proceedings to the acused the court of Additional Principal Sessions Judge SL Thakker also asked Special Educator for hearing and verbally impaired persons G. Suresh to be present during the trial through video conference from Tamil Nadu.

Notably, the court of Judge Thakker has been specially designated to hear matters as per Section 84 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (RPwD), 2016.

Additionally, Assistant Legal Aid Defence Counsel M. Gokulakrishnan who knows Tamil had joined the proceedings through video conferencing from Madurai, Tamil Nadu to aid the accused.

Along with this, during the charge framing proceedings, both the experts as well as advocate Ajay Choksi–who 'pro-bono' appeared for the accused–and Dr. Elizabeth Christian, an expert in Tamil and resident of Ahmedabad was also present, who translated Tamil into English during the court proceedings. 

The court in its June 3 order noted that with the help of these individuals, the judicial proceedings, its procedure and the charges framed against the accused were explained to him (para 4). 

Case in brief

The prosecution alleged that the accused had asked the deceased woman to have sexual intercourse with him, and when the victim refused, he attacked her by inflicting blows to her abdomen with a knife, killed her and thereafter fled from the scene.

Since the Investigating Officer did not understand sign language, the assistance of a sign language expert (Ashwinbhai Vegda) was sought, and it was through him that all the information concerning the alleged murder and the accused's alleged admission of having committed the crime was obtained by the IO.

Interpreter did not understand Tamil, not reliable witness

The Court, however, found several loopholes in the testimony of Vegda as it noted that though he claimed to have communicated with the accused using sign language, there was no record of the physical postures or gestures used by either party, nor any confirmation that the accused understood these gestures.

“There is no mention in the panchnama (official report) of what gestures Mr. Ashwinbhai Vegda used to communicate with the accused, how he conveyed the questions, and what gestures the accused used to reply”, the Court's order reads [para 28.2].

The court also noted that the panchnamas related to the arrest, discovery of weapon and crime scene reconstruction contained no such records, and that no videography was presented in court to support these interactions.

After perusing the record and the testimonies, the court in its order among various observations, noted that the Investigating Officer had admitted to not following the suggestions made by FSL on videography, photography of the incident spot and to also make a rough sketch of the same. 

The court further noted that the investigating officer did not make any inquiry as to whether the interpreter/sign language expert engaged by the prosecution was knowledgeable in Tamil language.

The court further observed that the interpreter admitted that he did not speak Tamil or Tamil sign language, and thus, it noted, the way in which he questioned the accused, who does not speak Gujarati or understand sign language raises a doubt and he does not appear to be credible and reliable witness.

The court said that there was no mention in the Panchnama about what kind of gestures the interpreter used to talk to the accused and what posture he showed when asking questions and what posture the accused showed in response to him.

IO did not interrogate himself, no independent witnesses

The court noted that the IO himself did not "personally interrogate" the accused and as per the IO, the accused was interrogated through the interpreter who allegedly  understood the sign language of the verbally impaired persons; thus IO got to know of all the details through the interpreter. 

The court thereafter noted that the interpreter in his testimony did not state that the accused had demanded physical intercourse from the deceased on the night of the incident and had murdered her when she refused.

The court observed that the IO had not explained as to where all these details came from. It said that since the IO himself does not know any sign language or understand Tamil, there was no possibility of him having questioned the accused on his own.

It noted that in the present case, no eyewitnesses were found during the investigation and there were no independent evidence regarding this incident found during the investigation.

The court thus said that the allegation made against the accused that he murdered an unknown woman because she refused to have physical intercourse appears to be fabricated and baseless. If such a serious allegation is found to be baseless, then naturally the entire investigation process will appear suspicious and corrupt, the order notes.

“…hence, the allegation appears fabricated and baseless. Such a serious accusation, when found to be without basis, naturally casts doubt and suspicion on the entire investigative process," the order notes.

The court further rejected the prosecution's contention on recovery and seizure of the alleged weapon and observed that Vegda (interpreter) had clearly stated that the police had already seized the clothes and knife before, and the accused did not produce these items in his presence.

The court thus said that the alleged seizure of the weapon used in the crime, which the investigating agency had shown in the charge sheet appeared to be fabricated.

The Court was also of the opinion that the discovery of the weapon had not been properly established. It found the claim of the IO to be 'absurd' that the accused dug a pit and buried the knife after committing the crime.

“Any person with basic common sense would question: why would someone bury a weapon like a knife near a crime scene after committing a crime? It would be more likely that he would discard it nearby or throw it away far from the scene. But no reasonable person would hide the weapon in such a careful way that it could conveniently be retrieved later upon police demand. This indicates a fabricated narrative aimed at implicating the accused in order to solve a crime that occurred within their jurisdiction,” the court noted.

The court further underscored that if the accused was interrogated in presence of the interpreter then in such circumstances it was necessary to videograph the same, and only then can the court reach a conclusion as to in which sign language and in what manner the interpreter questioned the accused and how the accused replied to him.

Against this backdrop, noting that the entire investigation process appeared to be tainted and suspicious, the court added that the testimony of the Investigating Officer cannot be considered free from reasonable doubt, and it would not be appropriate or advisable to find the accused guilty based on such testimony.

Thus, while acquitting the accused, the court also thanked the contribution of the experts who had been engaged to aid the accused in the conduct of the trial (para 5 page 63).

Background

The accused was charged for murder under IPC Section 302. The accused denied the charge by giving a statement; hence the case was placed for prosecution's evidence pursuant to which the trial continued. Notably, the Supreme Court had on November 8, 2024 (in Special Leave to Appeal (Cr.) No.- 12244/2024) also ordered a expeditious trial in the case.

As the case pertained to a sessions trial the magisterial court committed the case to the Sessions court. 

Advocate Ajaykumar Choksi appearing for the accused argued that the IO did not know sign language in either Tamil or Gujarati or English and did not interrogate the accused himself. He argued that the police also did not investigate if the accused knew sign language and no medical examination was conducted to assess the quantum of disabilities. Further no videography or photography of the accused's interrogation was conducted nor the drawing of the panchnama was captured. It was also argued that accused does not understand Gujarati and interpreter does not understand Tamil hence the so called extra judicial confession made in Gujarati was untenable. 

The State argued that all the offence alleged was serious and all the panchnamas have been properly proved by the testimony of the investigating officer. The alleged weapon used in the crime has been seized by the investigating agency from the place indicated by the accused. It was argued that discovery under Section 27, Indian Evidence Act has been properly proved. It was also claimed that as per the medical evidence the deceased was killed by stabbing. It was alleged that when the accused was questioned in the presence of the interpreter he had allegedly confessed to having committed the crime. Thus, the prosecution claimed that as the extrajudicial confession of the accused was present the accused must be punished the appropriately.

Case title: Shivchandra v/s State of Gujarat

Counsel for accused: Advocates Ajaykumar Chimanlal Choksi and Aditya Choksi

Counsel for State: Additional Public Prosecutor G.P. Dave