Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.299 – Record of evidence in absence of accused – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.33 – Appellant murdered his wife owing to her suspected infidelity however, fled away from the crime scene and remained absconding for nearly 10 years – Charge sheet was filed u/s.299 showing him to be an absconder – Complainant (PW-1) was examined on oath in proceedings u/s.299 where he gave detailed account of the sequence of events witnessed by him – However, he could not be produced for deposition in the trial which resumed after the arrest of the appellant, as he could not be found at the address given in the FIR despite all sincere efforts – Statement of PW-1 recorded during proceedings u/s.299 was relied upon as a piece of incriminating evidence against the appellant, apart from other incriminating circumstantial evidences and appellant was convicted u/s.302 – Conviction and sentence affirmed by High Court – Sustainability:
Held: s.299 (1) is in two parts, the first part provides for proof of jurisdictional fact in respect of abscondence of an accused person and the second that there was no immediate prospect of arresting him – In the event, an order under the said provision is passed, deposition of any witness taken in the absence of an accused may be used against him if the deponent is dead or incapable of giving evidence or cannot be found or his presence cannot be procured without any amount of delay, expense or inconvenience which, under the circumstances of the case, would be unreasonable – In the present case, circumstances of motive, last seen, confession and abscondence from the crime scene after committing the crime etc. were all spoken by the witness (PW-1) in his statement recorded on sworn affirmation during the proceedings u/s.299 – His statement by itself provides a complete chain of circumstantial evidence sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant – Thus, in light of the provisions of s.299 r/w s.33 of the Evidence Act, 1872, the trial Court and High Court were justified in holding that the statement of PW-1 recorded in these proceedings was fit to be read as a piece of substantive evidence – Prosecution established a clinching and complete chain of incriminating circumstantial evidence pointing exclusively towards the guilt of the appellant and totally inconsistent with his innocence or the involvement of any other person in the crime – Impugned judgments not interfered with. [Paras 31, 36, 38, 39, 47, 48, 50]
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.106 – Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge – Appellant failed to offer explanation for the homicidal death of his wife in the house during night time when only him and deceased were present, leading to interference of guilt by virtue of s.106:
Held: The circumstances leading to murder of appellant’s wife were in his exclusive knowledge – He offered no explanation as to the manner in which she was strangled to death within the confines of the room where only he and the deceased were present – The bald plea of denial offered by the appellant by way of an explanation to this gravely incriminating circumstance is not sufficient to absolve him of the burden cast upon him by virtue of s.106. [Para 46]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.