Section 314 BNSS: Interpretation of evidence to accused or his advocate (Formerly Section 279 CrPC)

Section 314 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Interpretation of evidence to accused or his advocate

Official Bare Act Text

Override / Mandate Mens Rea (Intent) Actus Reus (Conduct) Punishment Limitation Monetary

(1) Whenever any evidence is given in a language not understood by the accused, and he is present in Court in person, it shall be interpreted to him in open Court in a language understood by him.

(2) If he appears by an advocate and the evidence is given in a language other than the language of the Court, and not understood by the advocate, it shall be interpreted to such advocate in that language.

(3) When documents are put for the purpose of formal proof, it shall be in the discretion of the Court to interpret as much thereof as appears necessary.

Statutory Defined Terms in this Section: (Click any term for official legal definition)

Inquiry Sec 2(1)(g) Investigation Sec 2(1)(h) Victim Sec 2(1)(w)

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 314

Section 314 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 279 of the CrPC, 1973) guarantees that evidence given in a language not understood by the accused or their advocate must be interpreted in open court.

Mandatory Interpretation: Whenever evidence is given in a language not understood by the accused, and the accused is present in person, it shall be interpreted in open court in a language understood by them.
Advocate's Language: If the accused is represented by an advocate and evidence is given in a language not understood by the advocate, it shall be interpreted to the advocate in that language.
Documentary Interpretation: Applies equally to documents produced in Court for formal proof.

Key Landmark Precedents:

Shiv Narayan Laxminarayan Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, (1980) 2 SCC 465: The Supreme Court noted that failure to interpret evidence to an accused who does not know the court language strikes at the root of fair trial under Article 21.
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684: Affirmed that fair procedure requires the accused to fully comprehend every incriminating allegation emerging from the witness box.

Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

In interstate or cross-border prosecutions where the accused does not understand the local language, enter an immediate formal request for an official court interpreter before recording of prosecution evidence commences.