Accused Claiming To Be Deaf & Dumb To Escape Trial? Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside Section 318 CrPC Reference For 'Malingering' Rape Convict

"Once an accused knows the consequences of the act, then his plea that he does not understand the proceedings loses its sheen," Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench), in a significant ruling, set aside a criminal reference made under Section 318 of the CrPC, observing that an accused cannot be allowed to escape the "wrath of proceedings" by faking a disability.

A division bench comprising Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Pushpendra Yadav held that the trial court must ensure the recording of the accused's statement under Section 313 CrPC, even through written means, if the medical evidence suggests "malingering" or faking of illness.

The case involved the conviction of one Kalyan Raikwar for the aggravated penetrative sexual assault of a 7-year-old girl under the IPC and POCSO Act. During the trial, at the stage of the accused's examination, a plea was raised that he was deaf and dumb and unable to understand the proceedings. Although the Special Judge (POCSO) convicted the respondent, the matter was referred to the High Court under Section 318 CrPC as the judge believed the accused could not understand the trial's nature.

The primary question before the court was whether the trial court was justified in submitting a reference under Section 318 CrPC without recording the accused's statement under Section 313 CrPC. The court also examined whether the accused was genuinely disabled or was "malingering" to delay or evade the legal process.

Trial Court Mandated To Record Statement Under Section 313 CrPC

The Court observed that Section 313 of the CrPC is a mandatory provision designed to give the accused an opportunity to explain incriminating evidence. The bench noted that the trial court had directly proceeded to conviction and reference without completing this vital stage. It emphasized that even for an accused with communication difficulties, the court should utilize Section 313(5) CrPC, which allows for written explanations.

The bench remarked that "this is a case where the mandatory provision of Section 313 CrPC is not being complied with by recording the accused statement." It further noted that failing to record this statement could prejudice the trial and allow the accused to take undue advantage of procedural lapses at a later stage of appeal.

Medical Evidence Points Towards Malingering

The High Court scrutinized medical reports from a local medical board and AIIMS Bhopal, which indicated that while the accused had severe hearing loss, he was not "totally deaf" and could understand conversations with loud amplification. Crucially, the reports labeled his behavior as "Malingering," defined by the court as "pretending to be ill so as to escape something, in this case, conviction and sentence."

The bench noted with concern that the accused showed "non-cooperation" during auditory tests at AIIMS Bhopal. The court held that "the respondent/accused is neither totally deaf nor mute/dumb as per the aforesaid analysis of medical reports." The judges observed that the accused’s ability to sign court documents in Hindi further demonstrated his capacity to understand the nature of the proceedings.

Previous Criminal Record Contradicts Disability Plea

A pivotal factor in the Court's decision was the discovery of the accused's previous conviction in 2014 for a similar offense. In that earlier trial, the accused had participated fully, his statement under Section 313 CrPC was recorded normally, and no plea regarding being deaf or dumb was ever raised. The Court found it suspicious that such a disability was claimed for the first time in the current trial.

The Court observed that "non-disclosure of previous antecedents itself doubts the conduct of the respondent/accused." It criticized the accused for not approaching the court with "clean hands," stating that the trial court was kept in the dark about his prior participation in legal proceedings where he functioned as a person without such disabilities.

"Once an accused knows the consequences of the act, then his plea that he does not understand the proceedings loses its sheen."

Balancing Accused’s Rights With Victim’s Right To Justice

The High Court emphasized that while the rights of a disabled accused must be protected, the court must also safeguard the rights of the victim. It warned against "cleverly managing" a representation of disability to evade justice. The bench held that a "cautious approach" is required to ensure that the gravity of the allegations is not diluted by deceptive tactics.

The court stated that "the allegations are serious in nature, and an accused in such circumstances cannot escape the wrath of the proceedings by cleverly managing to represent himself as deaf and dumb." It directed that the trial court must use all available tools, including sign language experts and written questionnaires, to conclude the examination.

The High Court set aside the reference and modified the trial court's order, directing it to record the accused's statement under Section 313 CrPC within four months. The trial court was instructed to use written examination if necessary and proceed to pronounce judgment in accordance with the law, ensuring the accused does not benefit from his non-cooperation.

Date of Decision: 29 June 2026