Chapter XXIII
Section 277 CrPC: Language of record of evidence
New Law Update (2024)
Section 308 BNSS
TRIAL COURT
Court where evidence is recorded (e.g., Magistrate, Sessions)
Punishment
Procedural – Evidence / Witnesses
Cognizable?
Bailable?
Compoundable?
Bare Act Text
(1) If the witness gives evidence in the language of the Court, it shall be taken down in that language;
(2) 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;
(3) 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.
Important Sub-Sections Explained
Section 277(2)
This sub-section outlines the crucial procedure for recording evidence when a witness testifies in a language other than the Court’s. It mandates that while the testimony can be taken down in the original language if practical, an immediate and accurate translation into the Court’s language, signed by the presiding judge, must be prepared if direct recording is not feasible, ensuring the record’s integrity.
Section 277 Proviso
This proviso provides a significant exception, stating that if evidence is recorded in English and none of the involved parties require a translation into the Court’s designated language, the Court has the discretion to waive the requirement for such a translation, streamlining the process in certain circumstances.
Landmark Judgements
Bhagwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1999):
This judgment underscored that the proper recording of evidence in the language of the Court or its accurate translation is a mandatory requirement to ensure a fair trial, enabling the accused to comprehend the proceedings against them.
State of Karnataka v. Muniraju (2011):
The ruling emphasized the critical necessity of strictly adhering to the provisions of Section 277 CrPC to guarantee the accuracy and reliability of recorded evidence, which is foundational for an equitable justice delivery system.
Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab (1989):
The Supreme Court, in this case, highlighted the fundamental importance of properly recording and reading over evidence to the witness in their language, thereby reinforcing the principles embodied in procedural sections like 277 for ensuring a just and fair trial.