Whether Session trial is vitiated, the court has not recorded evidence of witnesses in vernacular or Marathi language?

  The learned Additional Sessions Judge by accepting the

pursis (Exhibit 19) recorded the evidence of almost all the

witnesses in English language. The said pursis dated 15th January,

2014 reads thus;

"That, the above mentioned matter is on today's

board for hearing. Accused has no any objection if

recorded deposition in only English language.

Hence, this pursis"

The said pursis indicates that the accused had no objection

in recording the deposition in English language when, in fact, it

seems that the accused were illiterate rustic persons who are not

expected to know the procedural law. Secondly, the pursis was

signed by one Advocate Kokate. It was not a joint pursis given by

Counsel Mr. Kokate for accused No.1 and 2 and Additional Public

Prosecutor. Rather, Additional Public Prosecutor appears to have

put his signature beneath the signature of Advocate Kokate. The

learned Additional Sessions Judge had simply endorsed 'filed'.{Para 78}

79. As a matter of fact, the learned Additional Sessions Judge

appears to have fallen into grave error in not recording the

evidence of prosecution witnesses in Marathi which is the

language of the District Courts in the State of Maharashtra. In our considered view, due to such a lapse on the part of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, a failure of justice has been occasioned and the proceedings stand vitiated.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CONFIRMATION CASE NO.1 OF 2017

The State of Maharashtra  Vs. Rahimuddin Mohfuz Shaikh @ 

John Anthony D'Souza @ Babu @ Baba 

CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV &

PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ.

PRONOUNCED ON : 25th November, 2021.

JUDGMENT: [Per Prithviraj K. Chavan, J.]

Print Page

Whether marathi deposition will prevail over English memorandum?

Where a witness deposed in Marathi which is the language of the Courts in mofussil and that evidence is read over to the witness and was admitted by him to be correct and the memorandum of evidence was made the Judge in English, in such a case, when a question arises as to what exactly the witness had stated in his evidence, it is the Marathi deposition of the witness that has to be taken into account and not the memorandum in English prepared by the Judge. Again in a case of State of Maharashtra v. Vilas Dashrath, 1976 UCR (Bom) 195, it is observed that :

"When a question arises as to what exactly the witness had stated in his evidence, it is the Marathi deposition of the witness which had to be taken into account".1

Bombay High Court

The State Of Maharashtra vs Bhaurao S/O Doma Udan And Others on 28 July, 1995

Equivalent citations: (1995) 97 BOMLR 414, 1996 CriLJ 673, 1996 (1) MhLj 214

Bench: B Wahane, R Lodha

Print Page