A witness is an individual who has actually witnessed an event. The event could
be a wrongdoing or a mishap or anything. Sections 118 -134 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 discussions about who can affirm as a witness, how might one
affirm, what statements will be considered as declaration, etc. Section 119 of
the Act says that an individual who can't convey verbally can affirm by method
of composing or signs. An individual who has taken a vow of quiet and can't talk
because of that vow will fall under this classification with the end goal of
On account of Chander Singh v. State
, the High Court of Delhi
observed that the vocabulary of a tragically challenged witness might be very
restricted and due consideration must be taken when such witness is under
questioning. Previously, it was viewed as that not too sharp individuals were
imbeciles and bumbling to comprehend and give level-headed answers. Yet,
presently, because of logical advancement, it has been proved that these
individuals are unmistakably more astute than others and may comprehend the idea
of the vow.
The vow can be directed to them and their evidence can be taken with
the assistance of a mediator by methods for hard of hearing and unable to speak
letters in order/gesture-based communication or outward appearances, hand
motions and so forth or if the individual is proficient, he can be given the
rundown of inquiries and he can compose the appropriate responses thereto.
However, these evidences would be allowable just when both the witness and the
mediator are directed the pledge and communication through signing utilized by
the individual unfit to convey verbally and the understanding thereof by the
translator are video graphed. Such witnesses will be unable to clarify every
little detail and answer every inquiry in detail utilizing the communication via
gestures, however this constraint of vocabulary doesn't in any capacity imply
that the individual is any less skilled to be a witness. An absence of
vocabulary doesn't influence her skill or validity in any capacity.
A detailed insight into the Indian Legislative Position The Indian Legal System
has an exceptional personality in the worldwide law for its allpervasive and
fusing nature. It has made complex provisions for providing equivalent, nay fair
chances to all the individuals irrespective of their physical and emotional
wellness and status. It is generally acknowledged and esteemed view that a
witness assumes the most vital function in the organization of criminal equity
The version recorded from a witness either encourages a denounced to
prove his guiltlessness or helps arraignment to set up its grounds and
contentions against the blamed in a more exact way with the norm past the span
of any sensible uncertainty. It is often observed that a portion of the
witnesses face physical impedance to communicate the occurrences or events
witnessed by them.
They will be unable to give their versions in verbal
statements. However, this explanation ought to never be a hindrance for
depending upon the evidence of such witnesses. Legal provisions and legal
professions have set down just as at multiple times repeated the methodology
which ought to be followed while looking at and gathering statements from such
The dumb witness is one who can't talk because of physical
deformation. Section 119 applies just to those situations when the witness is
hard of hearing and quiet or an individual who has taken a strict van of
quietness. In the event of such witness the evidence might be taken by methods
for composed inquiries answers procedures or by recording signs. The evidence
given 8 will be considered to be oral evidence.
"The gathering of the evidence
of such individual lays on the ground of convenience." Section 119 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 speaks, "A witness who can't talk may give his evidence in
some other way where he can make it comprehensible, as by composing or by signs;
yet such composing must be composed and signs made in open Court, evidence so
given will be considered as oral evidence. Provided that if the witness can't
convey verbally, the Court will take the help of a mediator or an extraordinary
teacher in recording the statement, and such statement will be video diagramed."
From the aforementioned provision, it becomes clear that the lawful conditions
have been made conducive to grasp all the witnesses. By all accounts, the
content of the law doesn't make any 'capable ist' assumption in tending to the
subject of who can give evidence in a court and in what way. In fact, there is
an acknowledgment that a few people will be unable to affirm verbally.
attestation of distinction in this provision however coincides with a call to
fair-mindedness in overseeing this provision. Despite the fact that this Section
doesn't allude to translators or gesture based communication specialists, all
reading material of evidence law underline that the assistance of communication
via gestures specialists must be looked for in such cases.1 Additionally, legal
choices deciphering this provision have held that while recording tribute
evidence with the assistance of mediators, the preliminary court should record
both the signs/motions made by the witness and their understandings as conveyed
by the mediator so the re-appraising courts have the chance to review the same.
This delineates the point made by Young, that 'distinction' consistently
represents a danger to 'unprejudiced nature'. Consequently any move to oblige
contrast must be joined by satisfactory protections. The pickle made by obliging
contrast while demanding fair-mindedness is additionally delineated by the
accentuation on 'comprehensibility' in this Section. As Section 119 states, to
be considered valid evidence, non verbal declaration must be introduced in 'some
other way where he can make it coherent'.
The 'unique' method of correspondence
of the incapacitated witness is obliged in the lawful cycle, yet depending on
the prerequisite that it is 'understandable' to the ablebodied crowd in the
court. Additionally it should be noticed that the duty is on the debilitated
witness to 'make it' clear. I allude to this problem as the 'weight of
understandability'. However, evidentiary value of 1 Kannabiran, Kalpana (2002).
Ravished justice: Rape.
In Kalpana Kannabiran & Vasanth Kannabiran (Eds), De-eroticising
assault: Essays on modesty, honour and power (pp. 104�169). Kolkata: Stree. 2
Patrick Devlin, The Judge (OUP 1979) 54. 9 declaration doesn't rely upon its
incorporation in the proper guidelines of suitability alone. Notwithstanding
these principles which have been examined, there are rules engraved in legal
practices and conventions that are conveyed to decide the 'nature' of the
evidence created through declaration.
Even if the standards of suitability
permit certain accounts to be told in the court and introduced as evidence on
the side of one's case, if these accounts are paid attention to relies upon
these last guidelines. These casual guidelines draw heavily on the prevalent
social characterisations of the individual affirming. At the point when judges
demand supporting evidence to certify the declaration of the prosecutrix in
assault preliminaries, they often depend on the socially far reaching conviction
that ladies are inclined to lying.
Factors, for example, inability to raise
alert, inability to report the episode instantly or nonattendance of wounds on
the body of the prosecutrix or the denounced are utilized to deduce assent with
respect to the prosecutrix. Thusly, these factors or the discoveries of clinical
assessment are concurred more noteworthy evidentiary value than the declaration
of the prosecutrix herself. In spite of what the Evidence Act says, patterns in
legal choices reveal that the very presence of inability drives judges to assume
that a witness is unequipped for affirming.
As the decisions examined in the
following section of this article show, running under the outside of legal
practicality is the assumption that handicap, irrespective of nature or degree,
suggests inadequacy to understand and respond to the inquiries presented, and
henceforth failure to completely take an interest in the legitimate cycle.
declaration of the crippled witness is limited in light of the assumed
inadequacy of the handicapped to 'freely' observe, recall and portray the
experience to which he/she is affirming. Moreover, on account of the impaired
witness, both the witness and the structure wherein the declaration is
introduced (non-verbal, through signs or signals) are tried contrary to the
guidelines surveying the 'nature' of evidence.2 The court while recording the
evidence of dumb witness, must record the two signs just as the understandings
of the translator and afterward just it gets allowable under the Indian Evidence
Act. 2 Mahoney, Martha (1991). Legal images of battered women: Redefining the
issue of separation. Michigan Law Review, 90(1), 194. 10 Precedential Mandates
and Procedures to be followed in extraction of such evidences.
In M.P. Sharma and
Others v. Satish Chandra
, District Magistrate, Delhi and Others3 , the Hon'ble
Supreme Court was of the view that an individual can be a witness not just by
giving oral evidence yet in addition by creating records or making clear signals
as on account of a dumb witness or like. The object of enacting the provisions
of Section 119 of the Evidence Act reveals that tragically challenged people
were before considered in law as blockheads.
However, such a view has in this
manner been changed for the explanation that cutting edge science revealed that
people influenced with such disasters are commonly discovered more clever, and
to be powerless to far higher culture than used to be once supposed.4 At the
point when a hard of hearing or quiet individual is created as a witness, the
Court, in the activity of due alert would positively discover with regards to
whether the individual has the base level of insight to comprehend the
significance and nature of the pledge.
At the point when the Judge is fulfilled
on the above models, he may allow the witness to make vow and give his evidence
by methods for composing. In the event that he can't peruse or compose, he may
take the assistance of a mediator and express his version through sign
languages. 5 In Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad v. Lingisetty Sreenu
, the Andhra Pradesh High Court believed that so as to
comprehend and welcome the evidence of such witnesses communicating their
thoughts with the assistance of signs, it ought to essentially look for the help
of a specialist in order to securely depend on such evidence. It is to be
noticed that the prerequisite under Section 118 of the Evidence Act must be
satisfied or at the end of the day, the witness must be equipped to comprehend
the inquiries put to him and ought to have the option to give sane responses to
them. On the off chance that he can't comprehend the inquiries or to make his
significance clear, he can't be inspected as a witness.6
In State of Rajasthan
v. Darshan Singh @ Darshan Lal7 , it was observed that "a tragically challenged
individual is a skillful witness. On the off chance that in the assessment of
the Court, pledge can be controlled to him/her, it ought to be finished.
witness, if ready to peruse 3 M.P. Sharma and Others v. Satish Chandra, District
Magistrate, Delhi and Others, AIR 1954 SC 300. 4 State of Rajasthan v. Darshan
Singh @ Darshan Lal, Criminal Appeal No. 870 of 2007. 5 World Health
Organisation, International Classification of Functioning, Disability and
Health, res 54.21 (2001). 6 Venkattan v. E., 14 IC 655: 13 Cr LJ 271. 7 State of
Rajasthan v. Darshan Singh @ Darshan Lal, 2012 AIR SCW (S.C.) 3036. 11 and
compose, it is alluring to record his statement giving him inquiries recorded as
a hard copy and looking for answers recorded as a hard copy. In the event that
the witness can't peruse and compose, his statement can be recorded in gesture
based communication with the guide of translator, whenever discovered vital. In
the event that the translator is provided, he ought to be an individual of a
similar encompassing however ought not have any enthusiasm for the case and he
ought to be directed promise." The Court must follow the orders of Sections 4
and 5 of the Oaths Act, 1969, i.e., vow or confirmation to be made by the
witnesses, mediators and hearers.
On the off chance that the evidence is
recorded with assistance of a mediator, there must be a record/video of signs
just as the translation of signs.8 Evidentiary Value of such Evidences To
evaluate the evidentiary relevance and tolerability of such versions, we should
have a look towards the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in various
occasions where evidence given by people unfit to talk was taken up for legal
thought. In Meesala Ramakrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh9 , the Hon'ble Apex
Court held that perishing revelation recorded by methods for signs and gestures
of an individual who isn't in a situation to represent any explanation adds up
to a verbal statement and hence, is relevant and permissible.
emphasized that 'verbal' statement doesn't add up to 'oral statement'. Section
119 of the Evidence Act necessitates that witness may give his/her evidence in
any way where he can make it clear, as by composing or by signs and such
evidence can be considered to be oral evidence inside the significance of
Section 3 of the Evidence Act. Signs and signals made by gestures or head are
permissible and have evidentiary value. Subsequently, the evidence given by such
people are entirely valid and allowable according to law. Communication and
Verbally incapable witnesses: Resolving the Paradox The effectiveness and
responsiveness of the public arraignments framework pivots upon vulnerable
voices being heard and being paid attention to. The inquiry at that point
emerges as 8 Baneshwar Marandi @ Boneshwar Marandi @ Bhuneshwar Marandi v. The
State of Jharkhand, Bail Application No. 6591 of 2017. 9 Meesala Ramakrishnan v.
State of Andhra Pradesh, (1994) 4 SCC 182. 12 to with regards to how 'the best
evidence' of such witnesses can be best encouraged. Evidently, non-verbal
victims face a novel test in such manner since they don't communicate verbally.
One potential component that may enable witnesses to interact all the more
effectively with the criminal equity framework is Augmentative and Alternative
Communication (AAC). AAC alludes to a blossoming territory of instructive and
clinical practice which intends to provide a scope of communication techniques
to enhance or supplant an individual's normal discourse, which is commonly
recognized to have developed as perceived professional specialization in the
Three of the most widely recognized strategies for communication uphold
which fall inside the umbrella term AAC incorporate discourse creating devices
or SGDs (otherwise called Voice Output Communication Aids or VOCAs) which might
be worked by hand or through eye-stare acknowledgment innovation; the
utilization of image/picture cards; and the utilization of streamlined manual
marking frameworks intended for individuals with learning handicaps, for
example, Makaton which draw upon the vocabulary of marked dialects, for example,
British Sign Language yet which have essentially less linguistic complexity. 11
However, a rich diversity of different techniques likewise exist including the
utilization of composing, drawing, the utilization of artifacts, for example,
dolls to re-enact situations; and any methodology which expects to encourage
communication by enhancing or supplanting regular discourse with alternative
mediums might be said to comprise a type of AAC.
FC is a controversial method
which involves a facilitator supporting an individual to illuminate messages on
an alphabetic console. This is combined with verbal prompts and good help; often
creating surprising results of familiar, profoundly educated communication where
communication capacity of this level had not been evidenced previously.
FC has a
controversial history in the courtroom, having been embroiled in various
examples of sexual maltreatment claims which were accordingly discovered to be
false, with initiation suspected to lie with the facilitator.12 FC isn't
acknowledged as a genuine AAC intervention by the International Society for
Augmentative and Alternative Communication,14 and its alarming courtroom history
makes 10 Joyce Plotnikoff and Richard Woolfson, Intermediaries in the Criminal
Justice System (Policy Press 2015). 11 R v. Watts,  EWCA Crim 1924. 12
Young, Iris Marion (1990).
The ideal of impartiality and civic public. In I.M.
Young (Ed.), Justice and the politics of difference (pp. 96-120). New Jersey:
Princeton University Press. 14 Supra Note 11. 13 it deserving of notice for two
reasons: initially, to bring issues to light of the likelihood that jury
impression of AAC-interceded evidence all the more by and large might be
undermined by the historical backdrop of FC specifically; and also to feature
the requirement for additional unloading of the various elements of help offered
by mediators (social, enthusiastic, hierarchical, communicative, physical) and
the ramifications of these for perceived validity and creation. These inquiries
are examined further beneath.
The innovations sketched out above have without a
doubt engaged voices that have a distant memory unheard in a scope of social
settings. While the utilization of these advances is relatively novel inside
criminal equity, and there are barely any detailed cases on their utilization in
legitimate settings13, there is a developing assortment of evidence that such
aids are turning out to be significantly more commonplace.14 The evidence
accumulated inside other social settings recommends that, if appropriately
utilized, AAC holds the possibility to enable non-verbal victims through
decreasing levels of pressure and encouraging them to give best evidence.
court may arrange that a qualified witness might be inspected through an
autonomous mediator so as to impart questions put to the witness, and to any
people posing such inquiries, the appropriate responses given by the witness in
answer to them, and to clarify such inquiries or answers so far as important to
enabled them to be perceived by the witness or individual being referred to.
Designed to help witnesses with severe communication challenges, go betweens
were first steered in 2004, preceding an eliminated public roll started in 2008.
The plan has since had a huge effect on admittance to equity in cases which
could never have previously gone to trial.15 Conventionally, a non-verbal victim
ought to be distinguished at a beginning phase in the investigative process, and
at this stage the Achieving Best Evidence measure is triggered.
The police and
other criminal equity organizations ought to stick to best practice rules set
down in regard of interviewing and addressing procedures to guarantee that
vulnerable witnesses are engaged to give their best evidence. An enrolled
go-between, chose from a scope of professionals with various abilities sets,
will at that point be coordinated with the witness by 13 Supra Note 12 14
Nedelsky, Jennifer (1997). Embodied diversity and the challenges to law. McGill
Law Journal, 42(1), 91-117. 15 Id. 14 the National Crime Agency to evaluate the
witness and make suggestions to various criminal equity staff, (for example,
cops, advocates, judges and magistrates, Witness Service and court faculty)
regarding how the witness ought to be questioned.16
The underlying appraisal of
a non-verbal victim by a delegate should investigate the communicative limits of
the individual concerned. This cycle would thus be able to be utilized to
distinguish clients of AAC; the kind of AAC innovation depended upon, and the
understanding, familiarity and aptitude level of the client.
extensively from individual to individual. In spite of the fact that ABE
interviews by and large spot accentuation on the requirement with the
expectation of complimentary narrative, witnesses with learning challenges may
often require more organized and shut inquiries the same number of are hesitant
to react to open invitations.
These suggestions will at that point be imparted
to criminal equity professionals to illuminate dynamic about whether, and if so
how, the investigation ought to continue and a preliminary ought to be held.
Where a case continues to preliminary, mediators will often go to an acclimation
visit with the witness and sit with the witness all through procedures. They are
required to screen addressing and miscommunication may or is probably going to
have happened (however their essential obligation is to the court).17
this speaks to an extreme takeoff from the model adversarial duel and vigorous
and enraptured mediators since they were first proposed by the Pigot Committee
in quite a while have been communicated that the separating of addressing could
bring about the loss of importance, sound and accentuation prompting inquiries
with respect to how effective a safeguard the denounced can mount in these
circumstances. It additionally speaks to a danger to the longstanding rule of
gathering control of evidence,18 and whether they are adequately prepared to
distinguish and protest unseemly lines of questioning. 16 Ministry of Justice,
Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings (Ministry of Justice 2011). 17 R
v. Cox,  2 Cr App R 6, . 18 Laura Hoyano, Reforming the Adversarial
Trial for Vulnerable Witnesses and Defendants (2015) Crim LR 105. 15 Aids to
communication under English Law: A source of inspiration for Indian Legislators
The utilization of a mediator alone is probably not going to encourage the
evidence of nonverbal witnesses. Also, such witnesses are probably going to
require the help of some type of AAC to communicate.
The court may coordinate
that a witness is allowed to utilize help improve communication based on the
individual needs of the witness. Aids to communication may accordingly improve
the nature of evidence, yet may likewise decrease feelings of anxiety of the
Oddly, no meaning of what may establish such a guide is provided in the
enactment itself; anything regarded fitting to the court is reasonable albeit
both the Equal Treatment Bench Book and the Criminal Procedure Rules 2015 allude
to a variety of apparatuses, for example, pictures, plans, images, dolls,
figures, models, body maps and comparative aids.19 On a practical level however,
concerns have been communicated that advocates and judges, specifically, are new
to the scope of aids available and their capability to enable witnesses who need
There are some positive signs, however, that levels of
understanding are improving. Aids in the Criminal Justice System, is one of only
a handful scarcely any types of legal direction that make express reference to
the utilization of innovative and low-tech types of AAC delineated above. 20
Toolkit 14, notwithstanding providing a clear and educated diagram regarding
huge numbers of the types of AAC, underscores the significance of the function
of the mediator in evaluating the verbal impediments or eccentric discourse
examples of a learning handicapped witness and suggests a blend of instruments
and methodologies that may best encourage the evidence of an individual witness.
The YJCEA has made a structure whereby evidence is considerably more liable to
be received from non-verbal witnesses providing the competency test is met.
However notwithstanding the presentation of exceptional measures and more
prominent quantities of witnesses with communication troubles currently being
regarded equipped to affirm, utilized every day by 19 Kapur, Ratna, & Cossman,
Brenda (1996). Subversive sites: Feminist engagement with law in India.
Delhi: SAGE. 20 Kirsten Hanna and others, Child Witnesses in the New Zealand
Criminal Courts: a Review of Practice and Implications for Policy (NZ Law
Foundation 2010). 23 YJCEA 1999, ss. 16(5) and 19(2). 16 safeguard legal
advisors in a scope of settings have gotten away from assessment. The onus at
that point falls on the preliminary adjudicator to militate against such
tactics.23 Analyzing Chander Singh v. State:
An overlook of the latest Indian
Position Discarding an allure where the appealing party was convicted for the
offense under Section 9(k) of the Protection of Childen from Sexual Offenses
Act, 2012 for aggravated rape of a not too sharp minor, and granted thorough
detainment for a very long time with fine of Rs 5000, the Bench of Mukta Gupta,
J. held that however accused of a significant offense a blamed can be convicted
for a minor offense, however, the vice-versa is impermissible.
In spite of the
fact that the litigant was charged under Section 7 of the POCSO Act for rape
culpable under Section 8 wherein the base discipline is 3 years stretching out
to 5 years with fine, he was convicted under Section 9(k) for aggravated rape.
The appealing party had placated that since the prosecutrix, who was tragically
challenged, couldn't be interrogated, her declaration can't be perused in
evidence and even if the offense is proved against the litigant, the equivalent
would fall under Section 7 culpable under Section 8 and not under Section 9(k)
culpable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act.
Relying on State of Rajasthan v. Darshan Singh
21, the Court stated that Section 119 of the Evidence Act provides
that a witness who can't talk may give his evidence in some other way where he
can make it coherent, the Court observed that the prosecutrix had clarified the
occurrence through her drawings and through signals to her mom with the end goal
of interrogation. The Court observed that the motivation behind interrogation is
to learn reality corresponding to the allegation leveled against an acused and
circumspection vests in the court to control the questioning. A gathering
interrogating an almost totally senseless witness like some other witness is
needed to act inside the limits of law and can't be allowed to interview the
witness one and all on irrelevant inquiries. It is the obligation of a Judge to
control the interrogation to prevent any maltreatment and to shield a witness
from being unjustifiably managed. Sections 149 to 152 of the Evidence Act denied
inquiries without sensible grounds 21 State of Rajasthan v. Darshan Singh
(2012) 5 SCC 789. 17 and Section 138 provides that questioning need not be
restricted to the facts to which the witness affirmed in his assessment in-boss.
The Court observed that "When an almost totally senseless witness is under
questioning, the Court is needed to take due consideration of the fact that
vocabulary of such an individual is restricted as the person communicates in
through gesture based communication and it may not be workable for that witness
to reply, or in detail clarify every answer by gesture based communication. This
incapacity of a restricted vocabulary of communication via gestures doesn't
influence either the skill or the believability of such witness. The Court is
needed to practice power over the interrogation keeping in view the capacity of
the witness to address the inquiries." Concerning the idea of the offense, the
Court observed that in the facts of the case it isn't needed to go into if
aggravated rape is made out from the evidence on record, for the explanation
there was no charge for aggravated rape outlined against the litigant. It is
prosaic law that however accused of a significant offense a charged can be
convicted for a minor offense, however the vice-versa is impermissible, which
has been finished by the preliminary court.
Observing that the direct of the
appealing party in explicitly attacking a not too sharp young lady who was not
in a situation to secure herself completely justified most extreme discipline,
the conviction was adjusted to one for the offense under Section 7 and culpable
under Section 8 and the request on sentence was altered to thorough detainment
for a very long time with fine of Rs 10,000.
The vague assumption
that the people having physical obstacles are mentally frail is obsolete. The
Indian equity delivery set-up has provided a comprehensive environment where
every single witness who has a base level of knowledge is given an opportunity
to be affirmed. Moreover, the procedural protections are carefully executed to
check any prohibited or indiscernible evidence. However, legal mandates are
sufficiently prepared to overcome all the procedural bottlenecks.
On the off
chance that conviction of the blamed is the objective for moving the legitimate
cycle for a situation of assault, at that point the purpose of intervention of
law change endeavors ought to be some place other than where it is in current
women's activist law change 18 proposition. It is imperative to recollect that
even if the weight of proof is put on the blamed, the lawful relevance of the
declaration of the prosecutrix isn't decreased.
On the off chance that due
consideration isn't taken in recording and evaluating the declaration of the prosecutrix, the arraignment case is probably going to come up short, regardless
of on which party the weight of proof falsehoods.
The principal point ought to
be to unstick the aggregating thought of inability as a fixed state of
inadequacy. In solid terms, this would involve underscoring that the debilitated
witness is to be paid attention to and that his/her declaration is to be viewed
as relevant and recorded with due consideration according to the Indian Evidence
Simultaneously, we have to inquire as to whether the natural women's
activist sayings of 'exclusion', 'hushing' or 'subjection' are adequate to
represent the underestimation of the non verbal by the legitimate cycle. We
additionally need to ask whether women's activist hypothesis could discuss the
underestimation of the non-verbal without subsuming it inside its central
distraction with sex/sexual orientation.
Second, we have to give more prominent
consideration to how the method of enunciation or language utilized by the prosecutrix to describe her experience of sexual violence is connected to the
'exclusion' (Smart, 1989) of her version by the legitimate cycle.
On account of
debilitated ladies, we have to especially inquiry the pretended by the
communication via gestures master or the mediator in intervening between the
handicapped prosecutrix and the lawful cycle. So, we need a more profound
commitment with issues caused by the 'body' and 'contrast' in lawful talk, while
being aware of the agitating ramifications of such commitment for conventional
ideas of unbiasedness, declaration, comprehensibility or weight of proof.
Jennifer Nedelsky has composed, 'It is fundamental to see with equivalent
lucidity and conviction both the inconceivability of continuing with
conventional understandings of these ideas and the trouble of creating new
- The Indian Evidence Act, 187
- Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act, 1999
- State of Rajasthan v. Darshan Singh @ Darshan Lal, Criminal Appeal No. 870 of 2007
- M.P. Sharma & Others v. Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi & Others, AIR 1954 SC 300
- Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad v. Lingisetty Sreenu, 1997 Cr LJ 4003 (AP).
- Baneshwar Marandi @ Boneshwar Marandi @ Bhuneshwar Marandi v. The State of Jharkhand, Bail Application No. 6591 of 2017.
- Meesala Ramakrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1994) 4 SCC 182.
- R v. Watts,  EWCA Crim 1924
- R v. Sharp,  3 All ER 225, 231
- R v. Barker,  EWCA Crim 4.
- R v. Christian,  EWCA Crim 1582.
Books and Articles 20
- Addlakha, Renu, & Mandal, Saptarshi (2009). Disability law in India: Paradigm shift or evolving discourse? Economic and Political Weekly, 44(41), 62-68.
- Baxi, Pratiksha (2005). The medicalisation of consent and falsity: The figure of the habitu in Indian rape law. In Kalpana Kannabiran (Ed.), The violence of normal times: Essays on women's lived realities (pp. 266-311). New Delhi: Women Unlimited.
- Coombs, Mary (1993). Telling the victim's story. Texas Journal of Women & Law, 2(2), 227-315.
- Fineman, Martha (2008). The vulnerable subject: Anchoring equality in human condition. Yale Journal of Law & Feminism, 20(1), 1-23.
- Young, Iris Marion (1990). The ideal of impartiality and civic public. In I.M. Young (Ed.), Justice and the politics of difference (pp. 96-120). New Jersey: Princeton University Press.