Mute Witnesses and the Law
In the realm of justice, the voice of every individual matters — even those who cannot speak in the conventional sense. Under Section 119 of the Indian Evidence Act, mute witnesses are empowered to testify through writing, gestures, or interpreters, and modern technology has further strengthened this right. Court decisions, such as State of Maharashtra v. Sitaram Popat Vetal and State of Rajasthan v. Darshan Singh, have reinforced the credibility of mute witnesses, showing that their silence does not diminish their truth. The aim of this study is to explore how the law can better protect and represent mute witnesses, ensuring their dignity, privacy, and accuracy of testimony. It seeks to highlight the role of interpreters, technology, and expert support in safeguarding rights. Using a doctrinal research methodology, the work relies on statutes, landmark cases, books, articles, and online resources to weave together legal, ethical, and practical insights.
Across countries, legal systems have adopted interpreters, assistive technologies, and supportive procedures to overcome the challenges faced by mute witnesses. Historical precedents, from Indian cases like Darshan Singh to global examples like United States v. Ramirez, affirm their reliability when handled carefully. Technology — from video conferencing to AI-driven transcription — now allows witnesses to testify without barriers. Interpreters and experts play a central role in ensuring accuracy, fairness, and sensitivity, but their competence and neutrality remain crucial. Together, these measures show that mute witnesses can stand as credible voices in court, provided the system is willing to adapt. In the case of Dattu Ramrao Sakhare v. State of Maharashtra (1997) 5 SCC 341 The Court held that the sole testimony of a child witness (in this case, mute) is admissible if reliable.
The treatment of mute witnesses reflects the maturity of a justice system. While interpreters, visual aids, and assistive technology provide vital solutions, they also bring risks of bias, misinterpretation, and technical failures. Expert testimony can strengthen credibility but is sometimes contested. A balanced, multidimensional approach — blending human sensitivity with technological innovation — is essential. In conclusion, mute witnesses are not “lesser voices”; when the law accommodates their needs with dignity and precision, their testimony becomes as powerful and persuasive as any other, reinforcing the promise of equal justice for all.
In Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P. (2002) 4 SCC 85, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the legal position under Section 119 of the Indian Evidence Act, holding that the testimony of a dumb witness is admissible in evidence.It further clarified that the credibility of a mute witness cannot be doubted merely on account of their disability, and if the evidence inspires confidence and is corroborated by other material on record, it can form a sound basis for conviction.
This rigorous procedure ensures that the testimony of a mute witness is captured fairly and comprehensively, thereby upholding both the evidentiary value of such statements and the broader legal requisites of justice.
Views: 32,740
