Section 27 Evidence Act Statement Not Liable To Be Rejected Merely Because It Was Recorded In A Language Not Known To Accused Through Translator : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that a confessional statement, which is otherwise admissible in evidence as per Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, will not become solely because it was recorded not in the mother tongue of the accused.The Court was dealing with the confessional statement given by a Malayalee accused to the Karnataka police. The police had taken the help of a third party (who knew Malayalam but did not know to read or write it) to put questions to the accused and elicit answers from him. The third party wrote the answers given by the accused in Tamil language, which in turn was recorded by the police in Kannada language. The police claimed that the confessional statement of the accused led to the discovery of the dead body and hence contended that it was admissible in evidence to that extent as per Section 27.Before the Supreme Court, the convict raised a contention that the process of recording the statement was "unusual" and hence it should be discarded.Rejecting this argument, a Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Aravind Kumar held that the ultimate test would be whether the statement was noted down as told by the accused. When the statement is being recorded in the language not known to the accused, the assistance of interpreter if taken by the police cannot be found fault with.“Merely because the translation was made from Malayalam to Tamil and written down in Kannada would not suggest that such statement be held to be either not being voluntary or the said statement having been recorded improperly. The interpreter having entered the witness box and tendered himself for cross-examination which resulted in nothing worthwhile having been elicited for discarding his evidence, it cannot be gainsaid by the accused that said statement at Ex.P-2 is to be ignored or rejected or discarded. Merely because PW-10(interpreter) did not know how to read and write Malayalam does not ipso facto make the contents of Ex.P-2 to be disbelieved.” the High Court as an appellate court has the power to reverse an order of acquittal just as it has to power to reverse an order of conviction and that no distinction can be drawn between the two. A division bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Aravind Kumar observed: “The Appellate court may reverse the order of acquittal in the exercise of its powers and there is no indication in the Code of any limitation or restriction having placed on the High Court in exercise of its power as an Appellate court. No distinction can be drawn as regards the power of the High Court in dealing with an appeal, between an appeal from an order of acquittal and an appeal from a conviction. The Code of Criminal Procedure does not place any fetter on exercise of the power to review at large the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, and to reach the conclusion that upon that evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed.” The Apex Court was hearing an appeal filed by an accused who had been acquitted by the Trial Court, and the acquittal was later reversed by the High Court of Karnataka on an appeal by the State. The High Court had convicted the accused for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 404 and 419 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to simple imprisonment. Challenging the conviction by the High Court, the accused had approached the Apex Court. The accused while working as a labourer at the farmhouse of the deceased, is alleged to have hit him with an iron rod, leading to his death. He is also accused of stealing articles from the farmhouse and selling them for undue monetary gain. He is also alleged to have posed as the son of the deceased and attempted to sell the property of the deceased. The proceedings against the accused were initiated as a result of a complaint filed by the son of the accused. During the inquiry the accused confessed to the crime and led the police to where the body was hidden. However, the Trial Court concluded that the prosecution did not establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted him. The High Court reversed the acquittal on the ground that there was erroneous appreciation of evidence and convicted the accused. Adv. Renjith B. Marar appearing for the accused argued that the order of the High Court was only based on circumstantial evidence and could not be sustained. Adv. V. N. Raghupathy appearing for the State submitted that the material evidence on record that has been ignored by the Trial Court was rightly relied on by the High Court to secure the conviction of the accused. The Apex Court observed that the High Court has the authority to re-examine the evidence and conclusions made by the Trial Court and has the right to intervene with its decision. The Court also held that the High Court had rightly relied on circumstantial evidence that unequivocally points to the guilt of the accused.The prosecution relied on the “last scene theory” as two prime witnesses stated that ...

Section 27 Evidence Act Statement Not Liable To Be Rejected Merely Because It Was Recorded In A Language Not Known To Accused Through Translator : Supreme Court

Sheryl Sebastian

Tags