Citation:
Jail Appeal No. – 5752 of 2007
Date of Order:
11-08-2022
Bench:
Samit Gopal J
Parties:
Appellant- Gabbar Patel @ Dharmendra
Respondent- State
SUBJECT
The appeal in the present case was challenging an order by the Additional District and Sessions Judge. The Appellant was charged with Section 307 of IPC which is attempt to murder. He had pleaded guilty to the same in the statement recorded on his arrest. Based on this he was ordered by the Additional District and Sessions Judge to spend three years and six months of rigorous imprisonment and the prosecution was said to have successfully proven the accused as guilty. On hearing the appeal in this case, the amicus curiae for the appellant, argued that the judgement of the trial court is perverse and illegal, as the prosecution had not independently proven the guiltiness of the accused only based on the statement given under Section 313 CrPC and lacked any other corroborative evidence. Thus, the High Court acquitted the appellant of all charges of Section 307 and allowed the appeal.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
- Section 307, IPC- This section is regarding attempt to murder. It prescribes the term for imprisonment to be extendable upto ten years and a fine.
- Section 313 CrPC- This section is regarding the power of the Court to examine the accused. The accused shall have to answer questions without being under any oath. He may not be punished for refusing to answer or giving false answers. This statement shall be used against him as evidence during the trial or maybe put use to in any other manner.
OVERVIEW
- According to the police FIR, it was informed that a person with a country made pistol and narcotics is standing at Jalalpur Mod and is about to commit an incident. The police personnel who approached this person was said to have been fired at. The person was followed and after a while, he showed the police his pistol. The police then overpowered and caught him.
- The person who identified himself as Gabbar Patel @Dharmendra Patel was found to be in possession of a 12-bore country-made pistol with an empty cartridge and 300 diazepam tablets. The recovery memo citing the recovery of these items has been signed by the accused- appellant. FIR was lodged based on this.
- The Additional Sessions Judge on trial confirmed that the prosecution has been successful in proving the appellant’s guiltiness on the basis of evidence given by PW-1who one among the police personnel, the recovery memo, and the statement given by the accused- appellant in which he states that he is at fault and also admits his guilt. Thus the trial court approved of his conviction.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether one can be proven guilty solely based on the statement given under Section 313 of CrPC.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- The amicus curiae who appeared for the appellant argued that the trial court’s judgement was perverse and illegal. He argued that the prosecution’s case should stand on its own leg to prove the involvement of the appellant in the crime.
- This was a case of no injury. Though the recovery memo has been submitted, there is no corroborative evidence to prove that the said weapon was used by the accused-appellant. The prosecution has not proven that the weapon was sent for advice from a ballistic expert. Thus the accused-appellant should be acquitted of all charges and the trial court’s judgement should be set aside.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- The respondent argued that the statement of the PW-1 is sufficient to close the case as it proves that the accused-appellant was present in the situation. He was present at the spot where he is said to have fired the weapon, and he admits the same in the statement given by him. Thus, he should be convicted and the appeal should be dismissed.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The present case is admitted to be a case of no injury. The firing done by the accused has not hit anyone. However mere recovery of this weapon without any expert advice or any other corroborative evidence is not sufficient evidence to this.
- As to whether the statement in which the accused-appellant admits his crime is enough to convict him, it can also be seen that he had said he was not guilty and had claimed to be tried while framing charges.
- In the statement given by him, certain questions were not answered by him. According to law, a statement given under Section313 CrPC alone cannot substitute prosecution evidence. It can only be used to reject or support the evidence produced by the prosecution. It is only a reply given while being questioned about evidence brought about against him.
- No other witness was examined by the prosecution, that too who was a member of the team who arrested the accused-appellant.
- Thus the accused-appellant deserves an extension of the benefit of doubt. Thus he is acquitted of all charges and is free to be released. The appeal stands allowed.
CONCLUSION
The Court held that the prosecution’s arguments have no basis of solid, corroborative, admissible evidence, and thus the arguments put forward, convicting the accused-appellant does not stand. By law itself, it is undisputed that statements given under Section 313 CrPC cannot be considered sole evidence. It can only be used as appreciative evidence that supports or rejects evidence submitted y the prosecution.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
