Prosecution Must Establish Case Beyond Reasonable Doubt Even If Accused Pleads Guilty In Statement U/S 313 CrPC: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has observed that even if an accused pleads guilty in his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC, even then the prosecution has to establish its case beyond so as to obtain an order of the court regarding the guilt of the accused.

"...mere stating of being guilty (by the accused) in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. will end the issue and would lead the route only to the guilt of the accused without prosecution establishing its case beyond reasonable doubt against him through cogent, reliable and admissible evidence," the bench of Justice Samit Gopal remarked.

With this, the Court acquitted Accused/Gabbar Patel of charges under section 307 IPC by extending the benefit of the doubt.

The case in brief 

The police were informed that the accused was standing on the road, having narcotics and a country-made pistol with him and was about to commit an incident. The police personnels proceeded towards the Accused and that is when, all of sudden, the accused fired upon them after which they escaped, however, later on, they arrested him after overpowering him. 

The Accused was charge-sheeted under section 307 IPC, the trial was conducted and after the recording of the evidence of PW-1, the accused (while making a statement under Section 313 CrPC) was asked as to why a case has been lodged against him, to which, he stated that he was at fault. He admits his guilt. In reply to another question with regards to his making a fire on the police party, he stated that it is true. Further, in his last reply as to whether he wanted to say anything, he stated that he is in jail for a long time and leniency be shown to him.

Consequently, the trial court concluded the trial and passed the impugned judgment by stating that on the basis of the statement of PW-1 and the recovery memo along with the statement of the accused under section 313 CrPC, the prosecution had succeeded in its case beyond reasonable doubt and convicted him. Challenging that very order, the accused moved to the High Court.

Court's observations 

At the outset, the Court noted that there was no injury to anyone and the accused made a solitary fire but the same did not hit anyone. Further, the Court noted that a 12 bore country made pistol with one empty cartridge along with one live cartridge was found in his possession, yet, the prosecution did not show whether the said weapon was sent to the ballistic expert for examination which would corroborate its use at that point of time.

In view of this, the Court emphasized that mere recovery of a weapon and one empty cartridge would not be sufficient to prove the use of the said weapon without any corroborating evidence.

Regarding the question as to whether the accused, if pleads guilty in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is also the circumstance to rest against him or not, the Court made the following observations:

"In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he has not given any reply to certain questions and further states of his being guilty and then in addition states of the court taking a lenient view in the sentence as he is in jail since long time. Law, as it stands undisputed, is that the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is not evidence. It is not a substantive piece of evidence. It can be used for appreciating evidence led by the prosecution to accept or reject it. However, it cannot be said to be a substitute for the prosecution evidence."

Further, taking into account the fact that in the present case, only one witness was examined who was a member of the said police team, who had deposed for each and everything of the case, and that even the corroboration of the use of the weapon was not present.

"The weapon was not sent for expert analysis. The case is a no injury case. It cannot be said that merely by pleading guilty in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused can be pinned down and a conviction can be recorded against him," the Court further held as it acquitted the appellant/accused of the charges levelled against him.

Case title - Gabbar Patel @ Dharmendra v. State [JAIL APPEAL No. - 5752 of 2007]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 402

Click Here To Read/Download Order