In a recent landmark judgment on January 4th, the Supreme Court of India, through a three-judge bench consisting of Justices B. R. Gavai, P.S. Narasimha, and Aravind Kumar, reiterated a crucial legal principle concerning the admissibility and weight of statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The Court unequivocally emphasized that such statements cannot solely form the basis for conviction due to inherent limitations.

The case In question involved Darshan Singh, the appellant, accused of the murder of his wife, Amrik Kaur. The prosecution alleged that Singh, along with his alleged accomplice Rani Kaur, administered poison resulting in the intentional death of Amrik Kaur on the night of 18.05.1999. While the Trial Court convicted Singh, the High Court upheld his conviction while acquitting Rani Kaur.

The Supreme Court’s verdict centered on the interpretation and application of Section 313 of the CrPC, which empowers the court to question the accused regarding the circumstances of the case after witnesses are examined. The Court underscored two pivotal reasons why such statements cannot be considered as evidence for conviction: firstly, they are not made under oath, and secondly, the prosecution lacks the opportunity to cross-examine the accused, a fundamental right granted under the principles of natural justice.

The Court stressed that the absence of a specific alibi plea in Singh’s statement under Section 313 CrPC did not automatically deprive him of his rights. It highlighted that the accused’s failure to assert a specific defense plea during examination under this section doesn’t undermine their entitlement to a fair trial.

Furthermore, the Court pointed out discrepancies in witness testimonies, casting doubt on the established presence of Singh and Rani Kaur at the crime scene. In cases relying on circumstantial evidence, the Court emphasized the necessity of an unbroken chain of circumstances to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Moreover, the Court referred to another significant judgment wherein it held that the prosecution cannot endeavor to prove a fact during trial that a witness failed to disclose during police investigation. This reaffirmed the legal principle that trial evidence must align with and be consistent with statements made during the investigative phase to ensure credibility and reliability.

This judgment carries substantial legal implications as it reiterates the need for corroborative and substantial evidence in criminal cases, particularly when relying on statements recorded under Section 313 of CrPC. The ruling underscores the necessity for a robust evidentiary framework, emphasizing the role of consistent, cross-examined, and verifiable evidence in ensuring fair trials and just outcomes.

The significance of this ruling lies in reinforcing the high standard of evidence required in criminal cases. It emphasizes that the accused’s statement alone cannot suffice as substantive evidence and highlights the importance of corroborative evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Darshan Singh vs. The State of Punjab reaffirms the legal precept that statements under Section 313 of CrPC cannot independently substantiate a conviction. It emphasizes the necessity of a seamless chain of circumstances and the importance of credible, cross-examined evidence to ensure fair and just legal proceedings.

Leave a Comment

× Need legal help?