Accused Doesn't Lose A Defence Merely Because That Plea Wasn't Taken In S.313 CrPC Statment: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, in its recent judgment (on January 04), reiterated the well-established law that the statement recorded under Section 313 (Power to examine the accused) of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973, cannot form the sole basis of conviction. The Court underscored that such a statement of an accused is not evidence. The reasons are twofold. Firstly, it is not on...
The Supreme Court, in its recent judgment (on January 04), reiterated the well-established law that the statement recorded under Section 313 (Power to examine the accused) of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973, cannot form the sole basis of conviction.
The Court underscored that such a statement of an accused is not evidence. The reasons are twofold. Firstly, it is not on oath, and secondly, the other party, i.e., the prosecution, does not get an opportunity to cross-examine the accused.
“Therefore, the presence of the appellant cannot be found solely based on his statement, notwithstanding the lack of independent evidence led by the prosecution..,” the Court said.
A three-judge bench of Justices B. R. Gavai, P.S. Narasimha, and Aravind Kumar made these observations while allowing a criminal appeal of the accused applicant who was convicted for the murder of his wife.
As per the prosecution case, the deceased, Amrik Kaur, was married to Darshan Singh (appellant). However, their marital relationship was strained as Darshan Singh had developed an illicit partnership with one Rani Kaur. The illicit relationship between Darshan Singh and Rani Kaur is said to have lasted for at least three years. Prosecution alleged that on the intervening night of 18.05.1999 and 19.05.1999, Darshan Singh and Rani Kaur, with the motive of eliminating the deceased, administered poison and intentionally caused the death of Amrik Kaur.
Consequently, Darshan Singh and Rani Kaur were convicted by the Trial Court for the murder of the deceased. While the High Court affirmed the conviction of Singh, it acquitted Rani of all charges. Thus, Singh preferred the instant appeal.
The Court, after perusing the evidence, found that there were crucial omissions in the testimonies of the witnesses. Apart from this, the Court also addressed the prosecution's arguments that no specific plea of alibi was taken in the appellant's statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC. Further, it was also submitted that there is an implicit admission regarding the appellant's presence in the house.
However, they refused to accept these submissions, holding that the presence of the appellant cannot be found solely based on his statement. With respect to the plea of alibi, the Court observed that mere omission to take such defence under Section 313 CrPC is not enough to deprive the accused of his right.
“Further, this Court has previously considered the consequences when a particular defence plea was not taken by accused u/s 313 CrPC and held that mere omission to take a specific plea by accused when examined u/s 313 CrPC, is not enough to denude him of his right if the same can be made out otherwise.”
Pursuant to this, the Court also pointed out that while the High Court extended the benefit of the doubt to the co-accused Rani Kaur, the same was not done for the appellant.
Against this backdrop, the Court found that the circumstance of the appellant and Rani Kaur being present in the house has not been convincingly proved beyond doubt. While setting the impugned order aside, the Court stressed that when the conviction is based solely on circumstantial evidence, there should not be any snap in the chain of circumstances.
Also from the judgment - Prosecution Can't Seek To Prove In Trial A Fact Which Witness Hasn't Told Police During Investigation : Supreme Court
Case Title: DARSHAN SINGH vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB., Diary No.- 30701 - 2009
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 13