Section 119 Evidence Act | Without Signs, Gestures, and Videography, the Voice of the Disabled Remains Legally Unheard:  Madras High Court Sets Aside Rape Conviction

"When Evidence is Rendered Inaudible by Law Itself", In a significant ruling on January 12, 2026, the Madras High Court, while allowing Criminal Appeal , set aside the appellant’s conviction under Section 376(1) IPC on the ground that the testimony of the deaf and mute prosecutrix was recorded in violation of the mandatory safeguards provided under Section 119 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Holding that the trial stood vitiated due to non-compliance with statutory procedure, Justice M. Nirmal Kumar observed, “When the witness is unable to communicate verbally, the law mandates that the Court must record evidence through signs, gestures, and video – failure to do so nullifies the testimony.”

While ultimately convicting the appellant under Section 417 IPC for cheating, the Court commuted the sentence to the period already undergone and directed the payment of ₹2,00,000 to the victim under Section 357(3) CrPC.

"Section 119 is Not Optional – It is a Gatekeeper of Reliability for Testimony from Non-Verbal Witnesses"

The Court began by noting that the core of the prosecution's case rested solely on the statement and evidence of the victim, a 20-year-old deaf and mute woman, allegedly raped on November 18, 2015. But the manner in which her testimony was recorded—both by the police and the Magistrate—was deeply flawed.

Justice Nirmal Kumar stated with clarity: “No videography was done. No record of signs or gestures was made. No oath was administered to the interpreters. Such blatant non-compliance strikes at the root of admissibility.”

The interpreters who assisted at various stages—during police investigation (PW4), at the time of recording statement under Section 164 CrPC (PW11), and during trial (Mr. Sagayaraj)—were never administered an oath, and crucially, there was no legal certification or description of the victim’s gestures.

Relying on the precedent laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Darshan Singh alias Darshan Lal, (2012) 5 SCC 789, the Court stressed, “The law requires that an interpreter be administered oath and that testimony be video recorded, especially when the witness cannot communicate verbally. These are not technicalities—they are safeguards of truth.”

“Contradictory Narratives Cannot Build a Conviction – They Collapse It”

Adding to the procedural lapses was a fundamental factual inconsistency. The prosecution could not even clearly establish the date of occurrence.

The victim’s mother, PW1, had stated in her Section 164 CrPC statement (Ex.P8) that she was informed of the rape on 18.11.2015, whereas her oral testimony placed the disclosure on 27.11.2015, after returning from Bangalore. The complaint (Ex.P1) and the FIR (Ex.P18) were also riddled with confusion on this point.

Justice Nirmal Kumar emphasized, “The contradiction whether the incident had taken place on 18.11.2015 or 27.11.2015 cannot be brushed aside and the origination of the case becomes doubtful.”

Despite medical evidence confirming sexual intercourse, the absence of injury, the delay in lodging the complaint, and the absence of any physical exhibits such as torn clothing further weakened the case.

“This is Not a Case of Force, But of Failed Promise” – Conviction Reduced to Cheating

While acquitting the appellant of rape, the Court did not accept a complete exoneration. Looking at the surrounding facts, including a village panchayat convened to pressurize the appellant into marrying the victim, the Court concluded that the case fell within the purview of Section 417 IPC for cheating.

Justice Nirmal Kumar observed: “The victim is a major. Her statement and the medical report confirm sexual intercourse. But the circumstances do not prove the use of force. Instead, they reflect a broken promise or deception.”

In this regard, the Court held that the conviction under Section 376(1) IPC was unsustainable and modified the conviction to Section 417 IPC, sentencing the appellant to the period already undergone and directing the payment of ₹2,00,000 as compensation under Section 357(3) CrPC.

The Court also directed the Fast Track Mahila Court to disburse the compensation amount already deposited by the appellant, along with accrued interest, to the victim.

"The Law Must Not Fail Twice – Once in Trial and Again in Remedy"

In closing, the High Court has not only redefined the procedural rigor required under Section 119 of the Indian Evidence Act but has issued a wider call to ensure that the voices of disabled victims are not lost in translation.

“Testimony must not merely be received—it must be understood in its true form. Courts must bridge the communication gap, not widen it through procedural apathy,” Justice Nirmal Kumar concluded.

Date of Decision: 12 January 2026