Procedure in regard to such evidence when completed
Section 313 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with procedure in regard to such evidence when completed. As the evidence of each witness taken under section 310 or section 311 is completed, it shall be read over to him in the presence of the accused, if in attendance, or of his advocate, if he appears by an advocate, and shall, if necessary, be corrected. The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) As the evidence of each witness taken under section 310 or section 311 is completed, it shall be read over to him in the presence of the accused, if in attendance, or of his advocate, if he appears by an advocate, 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.
Section 313, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 278 Procedure in regard to such evidence when completed Text carried over almost unchanged 96%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Saikrupa Sugar vs Mula Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 278, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The mandatory requirement under Section 278 Cr.P.C. to read over witness deposition immediately after completion of examination-in-chief and cross-examination cannot be bypassed. The witness must be given opportunity to verify accuracy of recorded evidence and point out any corrections before the deposition is finalized. Corrections to witness testimony cannot be made at a later date without following this procedure, even if the corrections appear to be typographical errors. The trial court's failure to follow this procedure is a procedural violation that vitiates the recorded evidence.
On this section: Mandatory requirement that after completion of examination-in-chief and cross-examination, the deposition shall be read over to the witness by or under the direction of the Court, and the witness shall be asked whether he wishes to make any corrections in his deposition. The court held this provision was not followed by the trial Magistrate, violating the witness's right to verify accuracy of recorded evidence.
-
Saikrupa Sugar vs Mula Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 278, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A Magistrate must comply with Section 278 Cr.P.C. by reading over the witness deposition to the witness immediately after completion of examination and cross-examination. Any correction to the deposition must be made only after the witness has been given the opportunity to verify the accuracy of the recorded evidence. Failure to follow this mandatory procedure vitiates the corrected evidence and renders the trial court's order allowing corrections liable to be quashed. The witness must be afforded the opportunity to explain whether any corrections are typographical mistakes or otherwise, and this opportunity cannot be denied based on the trial court's memory or the respondent's assertion of typographical errors.
On this section: Section 278 Cr.P.C. mandates that after completion of examination and cross-examination of a witness, the deposition must be read over to the witness to enable him to point out any errors or omissions. The court held that the trial Magistrate failed to comply with this mandatory provision, which is a fundamental procedural safeguard to ensure accuracy of recorded evidence and protect the rights of the accused.
-
Tuncay Alankus vs C.b.i.
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 278, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While the right to a fair trial includes the right to an interpreter who can accurately translate proceedings in a language understood by the accused, the trial court has discretion to assess whether a request for change of interpreter is warranted based on the actual proceedings, demonstrated prejudice, and interests of justice. The trial court's assessment of interpreter competence based on academic qualifications and the conduct of proceedings is entitled to deference, and a request for change of interpreter cannot be granted merely on the accused's assertion of incompetence without demonstrating actual prejudice or failure of justice. The provisions of Sections 278, 279, and 282 CrPC are mandatory in requiring provision of an interpreter, but do not mandate replacement of an interpreter upon every request by the accused.
On this section: Requires that evidence of witnesses be read over to the accused in his presence; if the record is in a different language than the evidence was given, it must be interpreted to the accused in a language he understands
-
Mohammad Iliaz vs Mohammad Ghouz
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a criminal trial, the burden of proof always rests on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. When the prosecution fails to produce crucial documentary evidence such as original trademark certificates, copyright register extracts, and original labels, and when seizure mahazars are not corroborated by attesting witnesses, the prosecution case fails. The accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt when the prosecution cannot establish the essential ingredients of the offence through admissible and corroborated evidence.
On this section: Statement of accused - Court recorded statement of accused under this section where accused denied incriminatory evidence as false and submitted no evidence on his behalf.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 313
What have the courts held on Section 313 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
Saikrupa Sugar vs Mula Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana (03 Apr 2018) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 278, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Mandatory requirement that after completion of examination-in-chief and cross-examination, the deposition shall be read over to the witness by or under the direction of the Court, and the witness shall be asked whether he wishes to make any corrections in his deposition. The court held this provision was not followed by the trial Magistrate, violating the witness's right to verify accuracy of recorded evidence. Another 3 judgments on this section are set out below. They run from 2008 to 2026.
How do I find court cases under Section 313 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNSS 313, section 313 BNSS, section 313 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. People searching for it also type 313 bnss in crpc and bns 313 3. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 4 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Saikrupa Sugar vs Mula Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana (03 Apr 2018).
What should I read with Section 313 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 310 (Record in warrant-cases), section 311 (Record in trial before Court of Session), so none of them can safely be read on its own. It carries forward CrPC 278 (Procedure in regard to such evidence when completed), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 313 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 313 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, cited as BNSS 313, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 359. Compounding of offences1355 words
- 187. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours1122 words
- 2. Definitions956 words
- 243. Trial for more than one offence930 words
- 35. When police may arrest without warrant881 words
- 480. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence823 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.