Kerala High Court
Thirunavakarassu vs State Of Kerala
Author: B.Sudheendra Kumar
Bench: B.Sudheendra Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/16TH PHALGUNA, 1938
Crl.MC.No. 1188 of 2017 ()
---------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 208/2013 of COURT OF SESIONS JUDGE,KALPETTA
DATED
CRIME NO. 51/2004 OF VYTHIRI POLICE STATION , WAYANAD
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
---------------------
THIRUNAVAKARASSU
43 YEARS, S/O.PERIYASWAMI,
DOOR NO.285, KOOTHAKUDI MAIN ROAD,
KALAKURICHI TALUK, VILLUPURAM(DIST.),
TAMILNADU.
BY ADVS.SMT.K.DEEPA (PAYYANUR)
SRI.V.R.NASAR
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
--------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-31.
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
VYTHIRI POLICE STATION,
WAYANAD DISTRICT.
R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.C.K.PRASAD
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-03-2017,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CONTD...
:2:
Crl.MC.No. 1188 of 2017 ()
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF FINAL REPORT/CHARGE OF CRIME
NO.51/2004 OF VYTHIRI POLICE STATION, WAYANAD.
ANNEXURE II CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PROCEEDING SHEET OF SC NO.208/2013 FROM
05.11.2016 TO 17.11.2016.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL
-----------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
SKS
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.
==================
Crl.M.C. No. 1188 of 2017
----------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of March, 2017
O R D E R
The petitioner is the sole accused in S.C-208/2013 on the files of the court below. The offence alleged against the petitioner is the offence under Section 302 IPC.
2. During the trial, the petitioner was represented by a lawyer of his own choice throughout. After completing the prosecution evidence, the case stood posted for the examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. At that point of time, the learned counsel for the accused requested the court below for arranging an interpreter/translator stating that the accused could not follow Malayalam. Even though some advocates were present in the Bar knowing Tamil, the accused was not prepared to accept any of them as interpretor/translator. Ultimately, the Court appointed a DTP Crl.M.C. No. 1188 of 2017 2 operator to translate the Court questions from Malayalam to Tamil and vice versa. Aggrieved by the above translation made by the DTP operator, the petitioner has come up with this Crl.M.C.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the DTP operator was not a qualified person, capable of doing the translation in the judicial proceedings, and hence prejudice had been caused to the accused.
4. Having gone through the proceedings of the court below dated 15.11.2016, it appears that the court below did not even mention anything about the qualification of the D.T.P. Operator, who had made the translation in this case. Merely because the above said D.T.P operator is having knowledge in Malayalam and Tamil, it cannot be said that he can effectively translate the questions put by the Court, unless he is sufficiently qualified.
Crl.M.C. No. 1188 of 2017 3
5. In this case, the accused is facing a charge for a serious offence. Therefore, it was the duty of the Court to ensure that the accused had understood the questions correctly before he answered. Since, there is no material to indicate that the above said D.T.P. Operator was a person qualified enough to make translation in judicial matters, I am inclined to grant one more opportunity to the accused to face the examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with the aid of any one of the lawyers mentioned above, who is capable of assisting the Court effectively to avoid further grievance of the petitioner in the matter. For the said reason, the court below is directed to examine the petitioner afresh under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with the assistance of anyone of the Tamil knowing lawyers referred to in the proceedings of the court below dated 15.11.2016. Before appointing anyone of the said lawyers, the court below must ensure that the said Crl.M.C. No. 1188 of 2017 4 lawyer knows Malayalam as well. I make it clear that the petitioner will not be permitted to place any objection in this regard.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the accused could understand the charge for which he is being tried, as the court charge was translated to him in the language known to him. The above submission of the learned counsel stands recorded.
In the result, this Crl.M.C. stands disposed of as above.
Sd/-
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR JUDGE SKS //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE