Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Emperor Vs. a Deaf and Dumb

Emperor vs A Deaf and Dumb

Type Court Judgment Court Mumbai Decided Mar 31, 1916
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/344812

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Mumbai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Section 341 - Deaf and dumb accused, trial of--Procedure--Conviction. - - In this case we are satisfied from the learned Magistrate's judgment that he was right in finding that the accused understood the nature of the act, which he was committing when he committed this theft.

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Emperor

Respondent

A Deaf and Dumb

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1917Bom288; 37Ind.Cas.495

Excerpt

criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 341 - deaf and dumb accused, trial of--procedure--conviction. - - in this case we are satisfied from the learned magistrate's judgment that he was right in finding that the accused understood the nature of the act, which he was committing when he committed this theft.1. in this case the accused, a deaf and dumb man, has been convicted of theft under section 380 of the indian penal code, and the proceedings have been-submitted to this court, under section 341 of the criminal procedure code.2. section 341 provides that in such a case as this the high court should pass such orders as it thinks fit. the law in england appears to be that though great caution and diligence are necessary in the trial of a deaf and dumb person, yet if it be shown that such person had sufficient intelligence to understand the character of his criminal act, he is liable to punishment: see russell on crimes, volume i, page 62 : archbold's criminal practice, page 11 and rex v. steel (1787) 1 l.c. c. 451; queen v. bowka hari 22 w. e. 35 cr. and queen v. bowka 22 w. r. 72 cr. queen-empress v. reubiri samuel (1894) rat. cr. 696 : cr. rg. no. 26 of 1894 are authorities to show that the same is the law and practice in india. in this case we are satisfied from the learned magistrate's judgment that he was right in finding that the accused understood the nature of the act, which he was committing when he committed this theft.3. we, therefore, confirm the conviction and sentence the accused to one month's rigorous imprisonment.

Full Judgment

1. In this case the accused, a deaf and dumb man, has been convicted of theft under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code, and the proceedings have been-submitted to this Court, under Section 341 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

2. Section 341 provides that in such a case as this the High Court should pass such orders as it thinks fit. The law in England appears to be that though great caution and diligence are necessary in the trial of a deaf and dumb person, yet if it be shown that such person had sufficient intelligence to understand the character of his criminal act, he is liable to punishment: see Russell on Crimes, Volume I, page 62 : Archbold's Criminal Practice, page 11 and Rex v. Steel (1787) 1 L.C. C. 451; Queen v. Bowka Hari 22 W. E. 35 Cr. and Queen v. Bowka 22 W. R. 72 Cr. Queen-Empress v. Reubiri Samuel (1894) Rat. Cr. 696 : Cr. Rg. No. 26 of 1894 are authorities to show that the same is the law and practice in India. In this case we are satisfied from the learned Magistrate's judgment that he was right in finding that the accused understood the nature of the act, which he was committing when he committed this theft.

3. We, therefore, confirm the conviction and sentence the accused to one month's rigorous imprisonment.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial