recording her evidence, as to how the incident was explained to her by the victim-girl. Obviously, it was hearsay evidence and could not have been relied upon by the learned trial Judge to hold that what PW 1 /mother of the victim had stated before the Court had actually happened. If the victim-girl could narrate the incident by gestures to her mother, the same could have been done by her in the Court and she could have explained the incident to the trial Judge. Section 119 of Cr.P.C. lays down the procedure for recording of evidence of dumb witness. It is not clear as to what prevented the trial Court to examine the dumb girl. It is also difficult to understand as to why the learned Public Prosecutor was interested in examining the Special Executive Magistrate who conducted the identification period. Unless the accused was identified in the Court, there was no point in examining the witnesses including the Special Executive Magistrate, who were present at the time of identification parade. It is noted that the victim girlPooja was taken to the Central Prison for identification parade. It is really strange to note that the learned Public Prosecutor handling the trial did not follow that there was no use in examining the SEM unless the victim girl was examined. Strong case is made out for bail. Hence I pass the following order:
