Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
11. It is because of the above that the majority of the Judges in the High Court look the view that the deceased did want to say that it was the appellant, her husband, who had set her on fire. In this connection learned counsel for the appellant, however, reads out to us that part of judgment of Jayachandra Reddy. J. in which he has dealt with the dying declaration and the reasons given by the learned Judge in not being satisfied fully about the same meaning that it was the appellant who had set fire on her. We are not satisfied if the reasons assigned by the learned Judge are adequate and cogent to reject the dying declaration as having clearly indicated that it was the appellant who had murdered. This would be apparent from two observations made by the learned Judges in this connection. The first is related to first question and answer which is as below : 11Q. What is your name. A. She nods as if she cannot speak."
12. The learned Judge has observed that though it has been recorded that the deceased "nods" it has not been mentioned whether it is side-ways, upward or downward. But then, there is further observation in the first answer that the deceased noded as if to say she cannot speak. This clearly brings home what was the noding meant to convey. We may then refer to the observation made by the learned Judge regarding the answer given to the last but one question which was whether the deceased meant her husband to which the Magistrate recorded : "She nods assent {from above downwards)". As to this the learned Judge observed that from this "can we say definitely that from this noding that she meant that the accused killed her or that the accused did not kill her". We do not think if this question really arises as the nod being from above to downward has to be an answer in affirmative to the question.
13. We have, therefore, no hesitation in endorsing the view taken by Justices Ali Khan and Rama Rao that the deceased meant her husband as the person who had burnt her. We do not find any suspicious circumstance also to disbelieve the dying declaration. This apart, there are corroborating materials to implicate the appellant to which we have already referred. " .. t 1 – RAMAKRISHAN v. STATE OF A.P. [HANSARIA. J.]
14. We now advert to the question relating to the evidentiary value A of a dying declaration based on gestures. The Judges of the High Court themselves have noted some decisions in this regard. These are : (1) A.P. Chandarasekera v. 171e King, AIR (1937) Privy Council 24; (2) Darpan v. Emperor, AIR (1938) Patna 153; and (3) Gajendra v. State of 01ism, (1973) CR L.J. 1058.
15. The Privy Council decision is however the main judgment on which the learned Judges of the High Court have relied inasmuch as the two other decisions have relied on what was held by the Privy Council. In that case as well (which came from Ceylon) the appellant had been C convicted of murder. The victim's throat had been cut and she was not in a position to speak but on being questioned regarding the person who committed it, she answered by signs and nods. The question which was examined by the Privy Council was whether the statement was relevant and admissible. It was held t)lat the statement constituted a verbal statement resembling the case of a dumb person and was relevant and admissible. It D was pointed out at page 26 that section 32 of the Ceylon Evidence Or- dinance (Which is in pari materia with section 32 of our Evidence Act) has used the word "verbar and not "oral". Reference Was made to sections 3 and 119 of the Ordinance in this connection. (Parallel sections in our Evidence Act being also 3 and 119). In section 3, which is the interpretation E clause, while defining "Evidence" it has been stated that it means and includes, inter alia, "oral evidence". Section 119 deals with dumb witnesses and states that he may give his evidence in any manner in which he can make it intelligible, as by writing or by signs. As to this evidence it has been stated the same shall be deemed to be oral evidence. These show that F evidence given by signs as well is admissible and is taken to be oral evidence.
16. In the Patna case the victim was in a serious condition and had made dying declaration by signs of hand and bead and the same was held G to be admissible by relying on the above Privy Council case. The Court, however stated that the recording must be of the precise nature of the signs and not interpretation of the same. Here, we have recording of the nature of nods and gestures. In the Orissa case some signs and gestures were IllJlde, which were taken to be verbal statement incompassed by section 32. H
17. We are, however, not much at the admissibility of the statement but its evidentiary value. As to this. we would state that the "sign language" has developed so much by now that it speaks quite well. We may refer in this connection to what has been mentioned about this language at pages 120 to 123 of Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 7, 1968 Edition, wherein the history of the education of the deaf has been dealt with. A perusal of the same shows that the educators of the deaf are divided into those who favour the manual (sign-language) system supplemented by articulation and those who favour the speech and lip reading, vetoing the manual language. At page 796 of Vol. 10 of the aforesaid Encyclopaedia, something C more has been said about "sign language". Reference has even been made to what a certain Mehar Baba, an Indian religious figure, had done in this regard. As to this Baba it has been noted that he abstained from speech in the last decades of his life, but "dictated" voluminous writings to his disciples, at first by pointing to letter on an English-language alphabet board; but, after evolving a suitable sign language of gestures, he relied on that alone. If volumes can be dictated by this method, a short message of the type at hand can definitely be conveyed by gestures.
18. We may also refer to what has been stated at pages 558 to 560 of Encyclopaedia Americana, Vol. 8 (1983). These pages contain a discus- E sion on "Education and training of the deaf'. It traces the history of modern education of deaf and speak about sign language. It states that even today there are educators of deaf who favour the manual system which includes use of finger or sign language. At page 800 of Vol. 24 of this Encyclopaedia there is a detailed discussion of 'Sign Language' and it has been stated that F this language can 11convey information, issue commands or tell stories • The reader is further informed about the use of this language for ntilitarian, ritual, theatrical 'and comparative purposes. It has also been stated that complete sign languages are still in use in parts of Asia and the Americas.
19. It may not be out of place to mention that the viewer of television G would find that even news are telecast for the deaf through sign language and lip movements.
20. On the basis of what has been noted above, we hold that dying declaration recorded on the basis of nods and gestures is not only admis- H sible but possesses evidentiary value, the extent of which shall depend npon RAMAKRISHAN v. STATE OF AP. (HANSARIA,J.] who recorded the statement, what is his educational attainment, what A gestures and nods were made, what were the questions asked – whether they were simple or complicated-and how effective or understandable the nods and gestures were.
21. In the present case, the questions being simple and short, the recorder being a Magistrate, the certifier of mental conscious state of the B deceased being a doctor, nods being effective and meaningful, we are satisfied that full reliance could have been placed on the statement of the deceased as recorded by PWll to find the appellant guilty under section 302.
22. In view of the aforesaid, we confirm the majority judgment of the High Court and dismiss the appeal. T.N.A. Appeal dismissed. c