Delayed Application to Rectify Deposition After Closing of Evidence Deemed Malafide Attempt to Stall Trial

The Petitioner lodged a complaint in 2003 against her husband and in-laws under Sections 498A, 504, and 114 of the IPC.

Her deposition was recorded on October 18, 2012, in her presence and that of her advocate.

Alleging clerical errors in the recording, she sought corrections via an application dismissed in 2014.

She challenged this in the High Court (SCR.A 867/2015), which directed the Trial Court to rectify any pointed-out mistakes "in accordance with law".

Despite this 2015 order, the Petitioner filed no application for over ten years until November 11, 2025.

This second application was filed only after the Trial Court closed the stage of evidence due to her failure to produce witnesses.

The Trial Court dismissed the application on January 27, 2026, citing gross delay.

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the Petitioner’s application for correction of deposition errors despite a prior High Court observation.

2. Whether an application for rectification of evidence can be entertained after a gross delay of over ten years and after the closure of the evidence stage.

The court considered Section 313 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) (corresponding to provisions in the Cr.P.C.) regarding the court's power to record and correct evidence.

The court applied the principle that while procedural errors in recording depositions should be rectified to ensure a fair trial, such remedies must be sought diligently and cannot be used as a dilatory tactic to obstruct the progress of a trial that has remained at the evidence stage for an unreasonable duration.

The Court observed that the Petitioner’s deposition was recorded in open court in 2012 in the presence of her legal counsel, yet the first objection was only raised in 2013.

Crucially, after the High Court's 2015 order allowed her to point out mistakes, the Petitioner remained inactive for more than a decade.

The Court rejected the Petitioner's argument blaming her previous advocate’s negligence, noting that the application filed on November 11, 2025, coincided exactly with the Trial Court's order closing the stage for her evidence.

The Court reasoned that the application was not a bona fide attempt to correct the record but an "afterthought" and a strategic attempt to further delay a trial that began in 2003.

It concluded that the Petitioner’s decade-long delay and the timing of the application justified the Trial Court's finding that it was an attempt to stall proceedings.

The Special Criminal Application was dismissed.