The accused was charged with theft. He did not reply when the charge was read and explained to him. The case was adjourned so that a medical officer could determine whether his failure to respond was due to illness or deafness. The report was never received, and the trial court eventually proceeded with the case under s. 169, Criminal Procedure Code, which deals with proceeding where the accused, though not in same, is unable to understand the proceedings. After hearing evidence for the prosecution the court decided that there was sufficient evidence to justify a conviction. The court remanded the accused to prison to be detained at the Minister’s pleasure as Provided by s. 169(1) (a), Criminal Procedure Code, since he appeared unable to understand the proceedings “either out of malice or by visitation of God”.
Held: (1) S.169 deals with persons who are unable to understand the proceedings from causes other than mental derangement such as deafness or ignorance of the language and was relevant to the present proceedings. [Citing Sohoni’s Commentaries on the Indian Criminal Procedure Code, 13th edn. (1931), p. 762].
Although there may be difficulties involved [Citing Lelanon Leseroi R., (1964) E.A. 111], the court should make an attempt to determine the reasons for accused’s inability to understand and to investigate means for communicating with him, such as experts in sign language or the use of person familiar with his language. [Citing Sohoni, supra, p. 763]. A decision as to whether his silence is due to legitimate causes or to malice should be made before proceeding to hear the evidence for the prosecution. If the silence is due to legitimate causes, then the court should proceed under s. 169. But where it is due to malice, s. 203 (4) applies, and the court should treat the accused as refusing to plea and enter a plea of “not guilty” for him. Since the cause of silence was not determined here, the case is remitted or trial de novo.
