LI Network
Published on: November 01, 2023 at 13:13 IST
The Supreme Court has underscored that statements provided to the police during investigations under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) should not be considered as “evidence.”
The Court ruled that mere contradictions between statements made under Section 161 CrPC and those given during examination in chief are insufficient to entirely discredit a witness.
In a case involving a grave attack by the accused leading to the death of one victim, the Supreme Court applied Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
This exception covers cases where an attack is not premeditated but occurs in the heat of passion during a sudden fight, without undue advantage taken or cruel or unusual actions.
The two-judge bench, comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, recognized that the incident resulted in one fatality and severe injuries to another.
The court acknowledged that statements given to the police during investigations under Section 161 are considered “previous statements” under Section 145 of the Evidence Act and can be used for cross-examination purposes, specifically to highlight contradictions.
However, the court emphasized that even if the defense successfully contradicts a witness, it does not automatically discredit the witness.
The bench noted that the second prosecution witness, who was an injured eyewitness and the wife of the deceased, naturally presented a detailed account of the incident and the roles of the assailants during her examination in chief.
When subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the defense, discrepancies may arise, especially considering her background as a woman residing in a rural area and the wife of a farmer involved in agricultural work.
In the legal proceedings, Advocate Dr. Charu Mathur represented the Appellant, while Senior Advocates Dr. Manish Singhvi and Ramakrishan Veeraraghavan represented the Respondent.
The case involved an FIR filed by Birbal Nath, alleging an assault by seven armed individuals that led to the death of his uncle while his uncle and aunt were working in their agricultural field.
The Trial Court convicted the accused under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, but the High Court acquitted them of some charges based on perceived discrepancies.
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had wrongly discredited the star witness of the prosecution, leading to the modification of the charges from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I of the IPC and from Section 307 to Section 308 of the IPC.
Each of the accused was sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 Part I IPC and three years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 308 IPC.
Case titled: Birbal Nath v. State of Rajasthan
