168 A SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 8 S.C.R. 42. Close examination of the testimony of Panch witness PW 8 reveals that the appellant had given his statement in Hindi and not in Marathi. B 43. Though, PW 13 is silent on this fact, but perusal of the said disclosure statements (Ext.47 & Ext.50) reveals the same to have been recorded in Marathi and the Investigating Officer not having ever read over or explained contents thereof to the appellant in his vernacular language. As a result thereof, certainty is absent as to the correctness of the statement as made and the statement, as recorded by the police. C 44. A Constitution Bench of this Court, in Syed Qasim Razvi v. State of Hyderabad3, in the following extract observed that when there is a lack of understanding of the language of the Court, it causes prejudice to the appellant. The bench observed: “9. …There is no doubt that ordinary court proceedings in Hyderabad are conducted in Urdu, but Urdu is certainly not the spoken language of even the majority of the people within the Hyderabad State. If the accused in a particular case is not acquainted with the English language and if by reason of the absence of adequate arrangements to have the proceedings interpreted to him in the language he understands, he is prejudiced in his trial, obviously it might be a ground which may be raised on his behalf in an appeal against his conviction. But in our opinion cannot be said that the provision in the Regulation relating to proceeding being conducted in English if the tribunal so desires per se violates the equal protection clause in the Constitution.” D E (Emphasis Supplied) F G H 45. In the case at hand, the aforementioned proposition of law is squarely applicable. From a perusal of material on record, we find that the Appellant did not know how to read and write in Marathi. This being the position, this Court has highlighted the importance of the appellant being able to understand the case of the prosecution against him. Inability to do so, by virtue of a language barrier causes prejudice to the case of the appellant. There is nothing on record to show that it was not practicable to record evidence of the appellant as well as others, whose vernacular was not Marathi, but Hindi. The original testimony, from which the text, tenor and true import of their testimony may be gauged, is not part of the 3 1953 SCR 589