LI Network
Published on: January 6, 2024 at 12:00 IST
The recent Supreme Court ruling emphasized a fundamental legal principle: an accused’s statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) cannot solely lead to a conviction.
The Court affirmed that this statement isn’t considered evidence since it’s not given under oath and lacks cross-examination by the prosecution.
In a case involving the murder of Amrik Kaur, where Darshan Singh was convicted, the Court revisited the conviction. The prosecution alleged that Darshan Singh and another person caused Amrik Kaur’s death due to a strained marital relationship and an alleged illicit relationship.
Although the Trial Court convicted Darshan Singh, the High Court acquitted the co-accused. Singh appealed this decision, contending that the prosecution’s case lacked evidence and witnesses had crucial omissions in their testimonies.
The Court rejected the argument that Singh’s failure to mention a specific alibi in his statement under Section 313 CrPC implied guilt or presence at the scene. It reiterated that such an omission doesn’t strip the accused of their rights.
Furthermore, the Court emphasized that when convictions are solely based on circumstantial evidence, there should be a continuous chain of events without gaps.
In this case, the Court found a lack of convincing proof regarding Singh and the co-accused’s presence at the scene, leading to the reversal of the conviction.
This ruling reinforces the principle that an accused’s statement under Section 313 CrPC cannot be the sole basis for conviction, especially when crucial elements of the case lack substantial evidence.
