Prior Statement Used For Contradicting Witness Must Be Proved Through Investigating Officer; Otherwise, It Cannot Be Reproduced In Witness's Deposition: SC
The Supreme Court explained that the correct procedure is for the Trial Judge to mark the portions of the prior statements used to contradict the witness.
The Supreme Court has clarified that the prior statement used for contradicting the witness must be proved through the investigating officer; otherwise, it cannot be reproduced in the witness's deposition.
The Court acquitted the Appellant who was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC holding that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of circumstantial evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The Bench explained that the correct procedure is for the Trial Judge to mark the portions of the prior statements used to contradict the witness. “The said portions can be put in bracket and marked as AA, BB, etc. The marked portions cannot form a part of the deposition unless the same are proved,” it further explained.
A Bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held, “we must refer to a peculiar practice followed by the Trial Court. PW-1 and PW-3 were confronted in the cross-examination with their statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. In the depositions, it is mentioned that the attention of the witness was invited to a particular portion of the prior statement. After recording the answer of the witness, the portion of the prior statement used to contradict the witness has been reproduced in brackets. The law is well settled. The portion of the prior statement shown to the witness for contradicting the witness must be proved through the investigating officer. Unless the said portion of the prior statement used for contradiction is duly proved, it cannot be reproduced in the deposition of the witnesses.”
AOR Mukesh K. Giri represented the Appellant, while Senior Advocates Swarupama Chaturvedi and Ruchi Kohli and ASG Aishwarya Bhati appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The Appellant was convicted by the Trial Court for the murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment along with a fine. The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
The prosecution’s case was based on circumstantial evidence. It was alleged that the deceased was last seen with the Appellant. The mother of the deceased testified that the Appellant took the deceased with him, stating they would return soon. When the deceased did not return, the parents repeatedly enquired with the Appellant, who allegedly gave inconsistent answers. The body of the deceased was later found on a terrace with a rope around the neck and hands tied behind the back. The Appellant and his father were found to have absconded after a missing person report was lodged.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court held that the conviction and sentence of the Appellant could not be sustained as the case was based on circumstantial evidence but two out of five circumstances in this case were not established beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Bench stated that it was “very difficult” to accept the testimony of the deceased’s mother as reliable. It explained that “it is not possible to hold that the theory of last seen together was proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. Even the finding of the High Court that the appellant gave evasive replies to misguide the parents of the deceased cannot be sustained.”
“Accordingly, the impugned judgments are quashed and set aside, and the appellant is acquitted of the offences alleged against him,” it held.
Consequently, the Court held, “When the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. There must be a chain of circumstances so complete as not to leave any ground for any conclusion inconsistent with the innocence of the accused. In this case, two significant circumstances forming the chain have not been established.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Vinod Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 209]
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Mukesh K. Giri; Advocate Mandaar Mukesh Giri
Respondent: Senior Advocates Swarupama Chaturvedi and Ruchi Kohli; ASG Aishwarya Bhati; Advocates Chitrangda Rashtravara, Priyanka Terdal, Poornima Singh and Koney Rama Mohan Rao; AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria
