Story of murder ‘fabricated': In a first, Gujarat special court under Disabilities Act acquits hearing and speech impaired accused

Indian Express

06-06-2025

In a first of its kind trial in Gujarat by a special designated court under the Disabilities Act, 2016, a 35-year-old hearing and speech impaired accused was acquitted in connection with a 2023 murder case of a 40-year-old woman, after appointing special officers for sign language and Tamil translations to assist the court in explaining the procedure to the accused.
Acquitting the accused, Shivachandra Tamil, the court held that the prosecution case that the accused — a vagabond had allegedly murdered the victim after she refused to give in to his advances — was a 'fabricated and baseless' story.
As per the prosecution's case, the decomposed body of an unidentified woman was found near the railway track of Sabarmati Railway station on May 31, 2023.
The Ahmedabad railway police picked up the accused on June 2, 2023 and his confessional statement was recorded in the form of a discovery panchnama of the alleged murder weapon, dug beside where he used to sleep. The prosecution sought to examine 18 witnesses to prove the case based on the charge that the accused had demanded a physical relation with the victim — also deaf and mute — on the night of the alleged crime and when the victim denied, the accused allegedly attacked her, inflicted brutal blows on her abdomen with a knife and killed her.
Observing that the deposition of the sign language expert and mediator, Ashwin Vegda, taken on by the Ahmedabad Railway police to question the accused 'was contradictory' to the claims made by the investigating officer in his testimony, the court order stated that 'it appears that in order to detect a crime in his jurisdiction, (the investigating officer) erected haphazard evidences against the accused.'
Noting that the accused was not conversant with Gujarati language, in which the legal procedures had been initiated, the court order, delivered on June 6 stated, 'The IO did not investigate if the interpreter Ashwin Vegda was conversant with Tamil language. There is no mention in the panchnama of what kind of questions did Vegda ask the accused while speaking to him in sign language as well as details of the sign language used by Vegda and the accused while replying to his questions… It is a fact that the IO did not question the accused on his own; he has placed on record that the accused was interrogated only through Vegda'.
'Whatever information the IO has obtained is through Vegda. In his own deposition Vegda has not mentioned any such fact that the accused had demanded a physical relationship with the deceased on the night of the crime and therefore murdered her as she rejected his advances. There is no clarity on where did the IO get this information from…'stated the order.
Questioning the prosecution's theory for murder, the court in its order stated, 'The IO himself does not know sign language or Tamil language and therefore it does not appear that the IO possibly questioned the accused on his own. The IO has also not come across any eye witness. Since the IO has admitted that he does not have sufficient evidence to prove that the accused murdered the victim as she allegedly rejected his advances, the accusation made by the IO appears to be concocted and baseless, therefore the entire investigation appears to be doubtful and contaminated…'
Observing that the IO had admitted in his testimony that he 'did not follow the recommendations of the FSL' and that 'no videography or photography of the crime scene or the questioning of the accused by sign language' had been made, the court also questioned the manner in which the IO had described the recovery of the alleged murder weapon — a knife — from a pit near the crime scene in the railway yard.
The court said, 'Although the IO has claimed that he has confiscated the weapon used in the crime as shown by the accused, he does not specify how he came across this information because as per Vegda's deposition, the accused did not lead the police to the weapon in the presence of the interpreter. It is sufficiently proved that the story presented in the chargesheet about the recovery of the weapon is a fabricated one….'
The court noted that the discovery panchnama (of the murder weapon) does not specify who found the knife and from which spot of the crime scene. 'In his testimony, Vegda contradicted the police statement and said that the police had already recovered the knife before he could speak to the accused… The police claim that the accused concealed the knife in a pit dug around the scene of crime is a laughable claim… why would an accused with common sense dig up a pit and hide the knife near the crime scene… Therefore it appears that to detect a crime that occurred in his jurisdiction the IO has linked the accused to the crime without any basis…' the court order said.
Considering that forensic evidence collected from the accused had no traces of human fluids or blood stains, the court further said, 'From the above discussions it is clear that the evidence gathered against the accused has been done in a slipshod manner. Had the interrogation of the accused with the help of the interpreter been videographed, the court could have looked into what kind of sign language questions were asked and answers were given by the accused. It would not be prudent to assume the accused to be guilty based on a deposition of the investigating officer whose statements cannot be considered as being proven beyond doubt…'
Stating that it was 'in the interest of justice', the court acquitted the accused while also expressing gratitude to the officers of the court and the legal aid services, who joined the court proceedings to help interpret sign language in Tamil for the ease of the accused.
'… In order to ensure that the accused was able to follow the process of law, G Suresh, a special educator from Madurai joined the court proceedings via conferencing along with Assistant Legal and Defence counsel M Gokul Krishnan from Madurai. Defence advocate Ajay Kumar Choksi, who appeared pro bono on behalf of the accused as well as Dr Elizabeth Christian, a Tamil to English translator, also assisted the court in the case…'
On the behalf of the accused, Advocate Aditya Choksi told The Indian Express, 'It was the first case in Gujarat tried by the Special court under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016. Although the case came to me for a bail plea, it led to a pro bono petition in the Supreme Court when the Gujarat High Court said it was a fit case for trial…'
'As per the directions of the Supreme Court, the trial was expedited. The special designated court framed the charges in January this year… and within 5 months and 15 days, the trial was concluded. The charges were read over to the accused only after they were translated to Tamil by a translator of sign language, Dr Christian… Special Educator G Suresh translated the charges in Tamil sign language to help the accused. In the absence of specific guidelines to try the accused with disabilities, the procedure adopted by the court was first of its kind to accord access to justice to all,' he said.
Advocate Choksi added that the victim woman had not been identified nor was her family traced by the investigator until the conclusion of the trial.