About the Author
Ann Varghese is a LLB student at Government Law College Ernakulam.
A witness gave evidence in a language which is not known to the Court, accused or his
pleader. Explain the procedure for recording evidence of a such witness with reference to
the statutory provisions. What shall be the legality of conviction if such a procedure
is not followed?
INTRODUCTION
The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 was a comprehensive legal framework that
governed the procedure for conducting criminal trials in India. It was enacted in 1973 and came
into force on 1 April 1974. It outlined the processes for investigation, arrest, bail, trial, and
punishment, ensuring that justice is served while protecting the rights of both the accused and the
victims. It was essential in upholding the rule of law by balancing the need for efficient law
enforcement with safeguarding individual liberties.
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 replaced CrPC as the primary procedural law for
criminal trial. It came into force from 1st July 2024 and was brought out with the intention to
consolidating and simplifying the law, strengthening the rights of the accused and improving
efficiency of criminal justice system.
FACTS OF THE CASE
A witness gave evidence in a language which is not known to the Court, accused or his pleader.
ISSUE
What is the procedure for recording evidence of a such witness with reference to the statutory
provisions?
ANALYSIS
By virtue of S.277 CrPC
In every case where evidence is taken down under section 275 or section 276,
- the witness gives evidence in the language of the Court, it shall be taken down in that
language; - if he gives evidence in any other language, it may, if practicable, be taken down in that
language, and if it is not practicable to do so, a true translation of the evidence in the
language of the Court shall be prepared as the examination of the witness proceeds,
signed by the Magistrate or Presiding Judge, and shall form part of the record; - where under clause (b) evidence is taken down in a language other than the language of
the Court, a true translation thereof in the language of the Court shall be prepared as soon
as practicable, signed by the Magistrate or Presiding Judge, and shall form part of the
record;
Provided that when under clause (b) evidence is taken down in English and a translation
thereof in the language of the Court is not required by any of the parties, the Court may
dispense with such translation.
Similarly, the BNSS, 2023 also holds similar place as follows: - In every case where evidence is taken down under sections 310 or 311,—
(a) if the witness gives evidence in the language of the Court, it shall be taken down in that
language;
(b) if he gives evidence in any other language, it may, if practicable, be taken down in that
language, and if it is not practicable to do so, a true translation of the evidence in the language of
the Court shall be prepared as the examination of the witness proceeds, signed by the Magistrate
or presiding Judge, and shall form part of the record;
(c) where under clause (b) evidence is taken down in a language other than the language of the
Court, a true translation thereof in the language of the Court shall be prepared as soon as
practicable, signed by the Magistrate or presiding Judge, and shall form part of the record:
Provided that when under clause (b) evidence is taken down in English and a translation thereof
in the language of the Court is not required by any of the parties, the Court may dispense with
such translation.
Thus, it is clear that If the witness gives evidence in any other language, it may, if practicable, be
taken down in that language, and if it is not practicable to do so, a true translation of the evidence
in the language of the court may be prepared. in case the language of deposition is to be recorded
in a language other than English or the language of the State, the Presiding Officer shall
simultaneously translate the deposition either himself or through a competent translator into English.
Case Law
In the case of Naim Ahamad v. State 2 , decided on 30.01.2023 the Supreme Court had once again
emphasized that evidence can be appreciated best only when it is recorded in the language of the
witness. The Apex Court had also held in SIJU KURIAN versus STATE OF KARNATAKA 3
that Section 27 Evidence Act Statement is not liable to be rejected merely because it was
recorded in a language not known to accused through translator 4 .
This maybe closely read with Kerala High Court judgement that has acquitted a Hindi proficient
accused, a native of West Bengal who was convicted for robbery and murder, because his
disclosure statements were recorded in a language not spoken by him.
(Question from Munsiff Magistrate main Exam 2023)
To join whatsapp group for Munsiff Magistrate Exam training program follow below link :https://chat.whatsapp.com/GLb6hKLzAGUDGwQZBSp91f
Convenor
Adv.Rethi, Mob:9496758232
