Chapter XXIII
Section 278 CrPC: Procedure in regard to such evidence when completed
New Law Update (2024)
Section 295 BNSS
TRIAL COURT
Magistrate Court, Sessions Court
Punishment
Procedural – Evidence / Witnesses
Cognizable?
Bailable?
Compoundable?
Bare Act Text
(1) As the evidence of each witness taken under section 275 or section 276 is completed, it shall be read over to him in the presence of the accused, if in attendance, or of his pleader, if he appears by pleader, and shall, if necessary, be corrected.
(2) If the witness denies the correctness of any part of the evidence when the same is read over to him, the Magistrate or presiding Judge may, instead of correcting the evidence, make a memorandum thereon of the objection made to it by the witness and shall add such remarks as he thinks necessary.
(3) If the record of the evidence is in a language different from that in which it has been given and the witness does not understand that language, the record shall be interpreted to him in the language in which it was given, or in a language which he understands.
Important Sub-Sections Explained
Section 278(1)
This sub-section mandates that after a witness’s evidence is recorded, it must be read back to them in the presence of the accused or their lawyer, allowing for immediate corrections. This ensures the accuracy and fairness of the judicial record by giving the witness and the defence an opportunity to verify the testimony.
Section 278(2)
This part addresses situations where a witness disputes the accuracy of the recorded evidence after it has been read over. Instead of simply changing the record, the court must note the witness’s objection, preserving both the original statement and the witness’s challenge for the court’s consideration.
Landmark Judgements
Jagdish v. State of Rajasthan (1979):
The Supreme Court emphasized that the procedure under Section 278 CrPC is mandatory to ensure the accuracy of the recorded evidence. Failure to read over the evidence to the witness and the accused or their counsel can vitiate the trial if prejudice is shown to have been caused to the accused.
Brij Nandan Singh v. State of Bihar (1979):
The Supreme Court reiterated the significance of strict compliance with Section 278 CrPC, stating that the object is to ensure that the record accurately reflects what the witness actually stated, thereby preventing subsequent disputes regarding the correctness of the testimony.