Wakilii

Salum v Rex (Criminal Appeal No. 138 of 1951)

East African Court of Appeal · [1951] EACA 217 · 1951 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from High Court of Tanganyika murder conviction
Decision
Conviction upheld

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court held that while a deaf mute witness is not incompetent to give evidence if intelligence can be conveyed to and from them through signs via a sworn interpreter, the trial Judge has discretion to exclude such evidence where the proposed method of interpretation is found to be inadequate. The principle in section 119 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, which permits witnesses unable to speak to give evidence by signs, applies equally to deaf mutes.

Outcome

Conviction upheld

Facts

The appellant was convicted of murder by the High Court of Tanganyika. At the preliminary inquiry, a daughter of the deceased, who was both deaf and mute, gave evidence as an eye witness through her sister acting as interpreter of her signs and noises. At trial, the trial Judge tested the proposed method of interpretation, found it to be of a very crude type, and exercised his discretion to exclude the witness's evidence.

Issues

  1. Whether evidence of a deaf mute witness is admissible under the Indian Evidence Act 1872.
  2. Whether the trial Judge properly exercised discretion in excluding the evidence of a deaf mute witness where the method of interpretation was found to be crude.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed (implied from context of judgment upholding trial Judge's discretion).

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Competency of Witnesses — Deaf Mute Witness — Admissibility
A person who is a deaf mute is not incompetent as a witness if he can be made to understand the nature of an oath and if intelligence can be conveyed to and received from him by means of signs through a sworn interpreter who understands the signs.
Evidence — Indian Evidence Act 1872 Section 119 — Application to Deaf Mutes
The principle inherent in section 119 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, which permits a witness unable to speak to give evidence by writing or signs made in open court, applies equally to witnesses who are both deaf and mute.
Evidence — Admissibility — Discretion of Trial Judge — Exclusion of Inadequate Interpretation
Where a trial Judge tests a proposed method of interpretation for a deaf mute witness and finds it to be of a very crude type, it is entirely within the Judge's discretion to exclude the evidence of that witness.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Indian Evidence Act 1872 s.119

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Salum v Rex (Criminal Appeal No. 138 of 1951) [1951] EACA 217 (1 January 1951)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.