The bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M.Trivedi recently held that the court recording evidence of a witness if practical shall record the deposition in his own language if his language is not the language of the court and if the same is not the language of the court, it should be translated.

The bench observed that "we are apprised that in some of the trial courts the depositions of the witnesses are not being recorded in their language and are being recorded in English language only, as may be translated by the Presiding officer. In our opinion, the evidence of the witness has to be taken down in the language of the court as required under Section 277 Cr.P.C. If the witness gives evidence in the language of the court, it has to be taken down in that language only. 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. It is only when the witness gives evidence in English and is taken down as such, and a translation thereof in the language of the court is not required by any of the parties, then the court may dispense with such translation. If the witness gives evidence in the language other than the language of the court, a true translation thereof in the language of the court has to be prepared as soon as practicable."

The court held that "as such, the text and tenor of the evidence and the demeanor of a witness in the court could be appreciated in the best manner only when the evidence is recorded in the language of the witness. Even otherwise, when a question arises as to what exactly the witness had stated in his/her evidence, it is the original deposition of the witness which has to be taken into account and not the translated memorandum in English prepared by the Presiding Judge. It is therefore directed that all courts while recording the evidence of the witnesses, shall duly comply with the provisions of Section 277 of Cr.PC."

These observations of the Apex Court came in a case where one person was sentenced under section 376 IPC for 10 years and confirmed by the High Court which was set aside by it. 

Case Details:-

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 257 OF 2023
NAIM AHAMED .......APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ......RESPONDENT

Read the complete judgment on this link