R v Sumba (High Court Criminal Case 4 of 1942) [1942] ZMHCNR 5 (31 December 1942)

248 Vol. II] R . v. SU M B A . High Court Crim in al Case N o. 4 o f 1942. Deaf mute—procedure. At the original trial the Court found that the accused was a deaf mute but was not o f unsound mind. A plea o f n ot guilty was entered and the evidence for the prosecution heard. A finding o f guilty was entered and the case was then referred to the H igh Court under section 156 o f the Criminal Procedure Code. The accused was then taken before the High Court and the order set out below was made. Evidence of the doctor under whose observation accused was placed was subsequently heard by the Subordinate Court. The Sub­ ordinate Court then came to the conclusion that the accused was not a deaf mute and was not non-sane and sentenced him . The High Court then allowed the finding and sentence to stand. See R. v. Jailos Jonato 5 N . R . L . R . 726. Law, C. J.: This case has been reported to the H igh Court by the trial Magistrate under section 156 Criminal Procedure Code.1 I have had an opportunity in Court to see and test the accused to the best of my ability and have come to the conclusion that the accused is a deaf mute. In my opinion the accused should be placed under observation by a medical practitioner for twenty-one days whose professional opinion in this matter would be o f far greater value than mine. I f it be found thereafter that the accused is in truth and in fa ct a d ea f m ute, then the case would fall within the principles settled b y the decision in The King v. The Governor of His Majesty’s Prison at Stafford (1909) 2 K . B ., p. 81, and the accused would have to be regarded as non-sane and thus of unsound mind and consequently incapable o f entering on his defence. The case is remitted to the Magistrate accordingly for the evidence o f a medical practitioner after his observation o f the accused for twenty-one days. If the accused be found to be non-sane b y the Magistrate, within the meaning o f the above decision, he will report accordingly to the High Court under section 151 (4) Criminal Procedure Code in substitution for his report o f the 6th January, 1942, under section 156 Criminal Procedure Code. The Magistrate’s finding o f guilty w ill then be set aside. 1 Now repealed.—E d ito r.