JUDGMENT : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. Judgment and order of conviction dated 16.10.2014, delivered by the Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli in Sessions case No. 73 of 2013, convicting accused no. 1 Ashok for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code with life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/or in default to S.I. of one month is, challenged by Ashok in this appeal. Accused no. 2 Banayya, accused no. 3 Sunil and accused no. 4 Shriniwas are acquitted by it of offences under Sections 302, 109, 114 and 212 of Indian Penal Code. 2. We have heard Shri R.M. Daga, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri J.Y. Ghurde, learned A.P.P. for the respondent State. 3. Prosecution story is that father of deceased Sadwali by name Durgayya, reported the murder of his son by appellant vide report at Ex. 61 due to previous enmity. Sadwali was police patil of the village Vyankatapur, where he was killed. Accused Banayya had provided new set of clothes to Ashok and concealed Ashok's blood stained clothes at his (Banayya's) house. 4. Shri Daga, learned counsel submits that report allegedly given or narration therein is not proved to be of Durgayya who gave it in Telgu, and it was translated by somebody into Marathi. Hence, report itself to police is not established. Moreover, Durgayya did not and could not have seen the incidence. Similarly, the alleged eye witnesses did not know court language but, deposed in Telgu. Trial Court took assistance of an interpreter for getting it translated into Marathi, and thus, the evidence has been recorded in Marathi language. As no oath was given to the interpreter as per provisions of Criminal Manual in form 3, the depositions are liable to be discarded. Statements of these witnesses to police are not only delayed but, also are in Marathi language and hence, raise serious doubt about the independence and correctness thereof. Eye witnesses are also not independent and in cross examination, changed the spot of occurrence. Trial Court itself has discarded recovery of appellants cloth under Section 27 of the Evidence Act by co-accused Banayya. As police statements of these witnesses are in other language, their depositions in court lose importance. By inviting attention to the facts on record his effort is to demonstrate that Sadwali, a police patil was killed by his enemies i.e., Naxal supporters and workers. As police statements of these witnesses are in other language, their depositions in court lose importance. By inviting attention to the facts on record his effort is to demonstrate that Sadwali, a police patil was killed by his enemies i.e., Naxal supporters and workers. We will refer to his other contentions at appropriate place. 5. Learned A.P.P. has pressed into service provisions of Sections 277 and 278 Criminal Procedure Code with two judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court to submit that grievance about role of the interpreter or doubt about the correctness of the translations is misconceived and by way of an after thought. Such an objection needed to be raised at the earliest before the Trial Court and appellant can not be permitted to urge it at this belated stage. Spot of occurrence is not altered by any witness and all of them are consistent. The guilt of appellant is established beyond reasonable belief. Shri Ghurde, learned A.P.P. has rebutted all the contentions of Shri Daga, learned counsel for the appellant and prayed for dismissal of Appeal. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant has pointed out that oath was never administered to the interpreter and still, translation by him of telgu deposition has been acted upon by the Trial Court. These witnesses do not know "Marathi" and still their police statements appear in Marathi. Hence, their evidence in chief can not be acted upon at all. Learned A.P.P. has pointed out that no such contention is raised before the Trial Court, and there is no ground on these lines in this Appeal. 7. Law on the point is in Sections 277 and 278 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Court has to record evidence in language of court if witness deposes in that language. If he deposes in other language, it can be recorded in that language, if possible. Otherwise, its true translation in the language of the court is to be prepared at same time as witness continues to depose. Procedure to be followed after recording is in Section 278. Said evidence needs to be read over to witness in the presence of the accused, if in attendance, or of his pleader, if he appears by pleader, and, if necessary, can be corrected. Procedure to be followed after recording is in Section 278. Said evidence needs to be read over to witness in the presence of the accused, if in attendance, or of his pleader, if he appears by pleader, and, if necessary, can be corrected. If any witness denies the correctness of any part of the deposition when the same is read over to him, the Court may, instead of correcting the evidence, make a memorandum thereon of the objection to it by the witness and add such remarks as it thinks necessary. The provisions of Section 278(3) are important in present matter. Where 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 same is to be interpreted to him in the language in which it was given, or in a language which he understands. In earlier i.e. old Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), these provisions were in Section 360 therein. 8. Here the help of the translator or interpreter is taken by the Trial Court for recording the depositions of PW2 Pocham Atram and PW7 Chandrayya Pandram, the two eye witnesses. The third eye witness PW8 Somayya Naitam has deposed in the language of Court and interpreter was not employed for him to understand his deposition. Hon'ble Apex Court in Mir Mohd. Omar v. State of W.B., (1989) 4 SCC 436 , at page 440 observes "15. The object of Section 278 is two fold: firstly to ensure that the evidence of the witness as recorded is accurate and secondly to give the witness concerned an opportunity to point out mistakes, if any. If the correction suggested by the witness is one which the Judge considers necessary he will make it at once as required by subsection (1) but if the correction is such that the Judge does not consider necessary, subsection (2) requires that a memorandum of the objection be made and the Judge add his remarks, if any, thereto. In the present case, the learned trial Judge corrected all the typographical errors which he considered necessary but refused to carry out the substantive part of his deposition. The section is not intended to permit a witness to resile from his statement in the name of correction. In the present case, the learned trial Judge corrected all the typographical errors which he considered necessary but refused to carry out the substantive part of his deposition. The section is not intended to permit a witness to resile from his statement in the name of correction. The learned trial Judge was justified in refusing to effect the change which he thought was intended to change the earlier version. He did not make a memorandum as the correction slip was unsigned and was not properly filed. Now, since the correction slip as well as the remarks of the learned trial Judge have become a part of the record, nothing more need be done as the provisions of Section 278 are substantially complied with." Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhagwan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1952 SCR 812 : AIR 1952 SC 214 : 1952 CrLJ 1131 observes "17. Had the witness traveled beyond the statements embodied in the first information report, objection to the use of anything not contained in it would have been understandable, though to be effective such objection would ordinarily have to be raised at the trial, but as the witness does not do that, there can be no objection on the score of prejudice. It is to be observed that the Explanation to Section 537 requires a Court to take into consideration the fact whether any objection on the score of irregularity could have been raised at an earlier stage." "29. But even if the fact be true that the deposition was not read over, that would only amount to a curable irregularity and, as the Privy Council observed in Abdul Rahman v. King Emperor in the absence of prejudice which must be disclosed in an affidavit which shows exactly where the record departs from what the witness actually said, there is no point in the objection. The object of the reading over prescribed by Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not to enable the witness to change his story but to ensure that the record faithfully and accurately embodies the gist of what the witness actually said. Therefore, before prejudice can be substantiated on this score, it must be disclosed by affidavit exactly where the inaccuracy lies." 9. Thus, the need to raise proper objection at the earliest possible stage in such situation is apparent. Therefore, before prejudice can be substantiated on this score, it must be disclosed by affidavit exactly where the inaccuracy lies." 9. Thus, the need to raise proper objection at the earliest possible stage in such situation is apparent. Accused also has to bring on record the prejudice suffered by him. The arrest form of accused Ashok shows that he understands three languages viz. Marathi, Hindi and Telgu. Hence, the deposition of eye witnesses PW2 Pocham Atram, PW7 Chandrayya Pandram in Telgu may have created difficulty for the Court while recording it, but, neither accused Ashok nor his counsel have raised any objection to the translation or procedure followed. When these witnesses were examined in chief or cross examined, no protest was lodged and attention of Trial Court was not drawn to the alleged omission to administer oath to the interpreter. No body doubted integrity of said interpreter. Omission or contradictions are also in the context of their police statements which are in Marathi. Had the accused or their respective Counsel had any problem or doubt about the interpreter, they could have effectively cross examined these witnesses and the investigating officer. Had such an objection been raised at the earliest possible opportunity, the course could have been corrected by the Trial Court. We do not mean that the contention of present nature can not be raised in appeal but, then, here we are satisfied that it is by way of afterthought and not accompanied with any proof of prejudice. His arrest form Ex. 83 prepared on 11.1.2013 mentions that he speaks Marathi, Hindi and Telgu languages. It is obvious that he not only understood what these witnesses deposed in Telgu, but, also its translated version. It is nobody's case that the Trial Court has not followed procedure under Section 278 of Criminal Procedure Code. Hence, in present facts arguments on absence of oath to the interpreter are clearly erroneous and unsustainable. No prejudice whatsoever is suffered by Ashok. 10. PW2 Pocham Atram, PW7 Chandrayya Pandram and PW8 Somayya Naitam are the three eye witnesses. As the appellant has raised some dispute about the language in which these witnesses deposed and oath administered or the role of the interpreter, we find it proper to begin with consideration of evidence of PW8 as Court has not taken assistance of the interpreter while recording his evidence. 11. As the appellant has raised some dispute about the language in which these witnesses deposed and oath administered or the role of the interpreter, we find it proper to begin with consideration of evidence of PW8 as Court has not taken assistance of the interpreter while recording his evidence. 11. PW8 Somayya Naitam is the owner of a panshop where the eye witnesses were sitting. He states that between 3.00 to 3.30 PM, he saw accused Ashok assaulting deceased Sadwali with knife and cut his neck. Ashok then ran away, and after that complainant Naresh Sabmek came to see Sadwali. He also went with him to see Sadwali. He also deposes that PW7 Chandrayya Pandram had also come to his shop then. His cross examination reveals that his shop is by the side of road in weekly market and beyond the road, Sadwali had his house. Eye witnesses and others were sitting at his shop when the incidence took place. He admits that deceased was on hit list of the Naxalites and once Shriniwas Kotrange was held by them under mistaken impression that he was police patil Sadwali. When the villagers informed Naxals about their error, Shriniwas was let free. He admits that Naxals had come when he was in his shop but was not aware whether after seeing them, Sadwali ran away. 12. He himself and brother of wife of Sadwali had gone to see the dead body. Other relatives arrived thereafter. Weekly market is behind his pan shop and beyond that the Gram Panchayat and Anganwadi (play school) is located. Beyond this there are the houses and then there is bus stop. He denies the suggestion that he was on cross terms with the accused. Reasons for any enmity or the difference between him and accused are not brought on record by the accused. No omissions or improvements surface and his cross examination does not dilute his assertion on oath in any manner. 13. PW7 Chandrayya Pandram understands only Telgu, He deposed with the assistance of interpreter Shri Chaudhari. Oath, if any, administered to interpreter Shri Chaudhari, is, not reflected on record but, the oath administer to PW7 is expressly recorded. Accused was represented by the competent lawyer and "no objection" was raised to the procedure followed. 13. PW7 Chandrayya Pandram understands only Telgu, He deposed with the assistance of interpreter Shri Chaudhari. Oath, if any, administered to interpreter Shri Chaudhari, is, not reflected on record but, the oath administer to PW7 is expressly recorded. Accused was represented by the competent lawyer and "no objection" was raised to the procedure followed. He speaks of his presence at pan shop, old dispute between accused and deceased and assault by Ashok on Sadwali with knife on abdomen. He states that thereafter accused Ashok cut Sadwali's throat by knife. Sadwali fell down on ground and died. Ashok then went to his house. His cross examination shows that pan shop is on one side of road while the residence of Sadwali was on other side. Sadwali was of his caste. This witness states that he informed that first there was blow on abdomen of Sadwali, again there was second blow on abdomen and then the throat was cut. He could not explain why it did not figure in his police statement. His police statement is recorded two days after the incidence. Its perusal reveals that he mentions repeated blows in it. Thus suggestion given to this witness is factually wrong and shows lapse on part of A.P.P. The effort to bring omission on record could not have been allowed in this manner. Multiple wounds of knife on body of deceased are not in dispute. Again no enmity between him and accused is pointed out. Incidence has taken place on 21.12.2012 and his statement is recorded on 22.12.2102. Thus, alleged delay or not administering the oath to the interpreter is not even urged to have resulted in any prejudice to the accused. 14. Coming to the evidence of PW2 Pocham Atram, grounds of delay or not administering the oath to the interpreter are common but, there is no attempt to demonstrate any prejudice to the accused, thereby. There is no reason as to why this witness should falsely implicate the accused. Learned Counsel also highlights that this witness did act as Panch on inquest on day of incidence itself, but, his statement as eye witness was recorded belatedly. His statement is recorded on 22.12.2012 i.e., on next day by police. His deposition on incidence reveals that after Sadwali left the pan shop, accused Ashok went behind him, caught hold of his neck and assaulted him by knife. Sadwali fell down. His statement is recorded on 22.12.2012 i.e., on next day by police. His deposition on incidence reveals that after Sadwali left the pan shop, accused Ashok went behind him, caught hold of his neck and assaulted him by knife. Sadwali fell down. He was not aware of the reason of attack. PW2 claims that frightened, he left the spot. In cross examination, he accepts that father of Sadwali is his real brother. He also accepts the geography of the area. He asserts that Sadwali was not arrested near pan shop, but, by the side of road. No omissions or improvements are brought on record in his cross examination. Learned counsel Shri R.M. Daga has urged that this witness changes the spot of attack on Sadwali. We fail to notice any such statement of fact. On the contrary his deposition appears to be in tune with other eye witnesses. 15. Printed FIR at Ex. 103 shows that intimation was received at police station on 16.55 hrs. Time of spot panchanama Ex. 53 is 17.00 to 17.40 hrs. and inquest is drawn in village Bamni between 17.10 to 17.50 hrs. It is unexhibited document. If PW2 Pocham was not available in village Vyankatapur i.e., at spot on that day and he was with dead body of his nephew. There is, thus no delay in recording his statement. 16. Dhananjay Farate, PW12 is the investigating officer who has not been cross examined either on delay or then on any facet of prosecution by the appellant. Similarly, due to these eye witnesses, large number of injuries on deceased, their existence on front, back or on lateral portion, size/depth thereof and various contentions based upon it by taking clue from the PM report Ex. 95 and deposition of PW11 Dr. Mayur Jiwane are too technical and do not advance the case of accused. The submission that deceased was on radar of the naxalites and they eliminated Sadwali is not substantiated at all. 17. The spot is duly proved and blood group "A" of deceased is found on spot. Ex. 51 CA report shows the blood group of deceased and connects him to spot. Effort of appellant to create confusion about the spot is misconceived and unsustainable. 18. 17. The spot is duly proved and blood group "A" of deceased is found on spot. Ex. 51 CA report shows the blood group of deceased and connects him to spot. Effort of appellant to create confusion about the spot is misconceived and unsustainable. 18. Though there are some arguments on seizure of clothes of appellant, the trial court itself has not accepted it and hence, we do not find it necessary to dwell upon it. The witnesses on discovery of knife by appellant have turned hostile but the Trial Court has relied upon evidence of the investigating officer PW12 Shri Farate to accept it. Moreover, CA report mentions blood of group "A" on knife and also reveals that deceased Sadwali was having blood group "A". Doctor proving the postmortem has also connected the weapon with the injuries. 19. Deposition of father of deceased Durgayya (PW4) who is reporter at Ex. 61 is not very decisive here. He has not seen the incident at all. His report is relevant only to note the initiation of investigation. Whether he is lying or really saw Ashok running away after assaulting his son, therefore, hardly matters. His report is translated by one Mahesh Kumar as endorsed upon it. In deposition, he states that one Kulmeth Samayya had translated it. However, this does not have any impact on merits of the matter. 20. Material looked into supra by us does not show any error by the Trial Court in convicting the appellant Ashok. Alleged enmity or the naxal angle is totally irrelevant here. No case for interference is made out. We therefore maintain the judgment and order of conviction delivered on 16.10.2014 by the Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli in Sessions case no. 73 of 2013 convicting the appellant Ashok s/o Ankalu Jangam for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and dismiss his Appeal. No costs.