CASE TITLE:
Jai Prakash Tiwari Vs State of Madhya Pradesh
DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
August 4, 2022
BENCH:
Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana
Justice. Krishna Murari
Justice. Hima Kohli
PARTIES:
Appellant – Jai Prakash Tiwari
Respondent – State of Madhya Pradesh
SUBJECT
- The appellant filed a special leave petition in response to the conviction and sentence confirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the object of section 313 of code of criminal procedure was satisfied?
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
SECTION 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE,1860:The section deals with the principle of constructive liability. Under this it provides that when there exists a common intention between the persons performing a criminal act all are liable in the same manner as if it was done by him alone.
SECTION 307 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE,1860:The section deals with the offence of attempt to murder. The punishment for the same shall be imprisonment for a period extending up to ten years with fine.
SECTION 25 OF THE ARMS ACT, 1959:This section deals with the possession of arms and ammunition, whoever possess the same that are prohibited shall be punished with an imprisonment for a period from five years to seven years along with fine.
SECTION 27 OF THE ARMS ACT,1959:This section provides for the punishment for using arms and ammunition. The same shall be imprisonment not less than seven years and might extend to life imprisonment along with fine.
SECTION 313 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE:This section provides the court power to examine the accused. Under this section no oath shall be administered to the accused while providing the same.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- The counsel on behalf of the appellant contended that there is no corroborative evidence apart from the hearsay evidence and the testimony of the complainant’s mother and complainant respectively.
- The counsel further submitted that the complainant has a close nexus with the police department and further contented that there were no witnesses who were produced by the complainant who had seen the appellant at the incident.
- The counsel relied upon the testimony of the Investigating Officer and further claimed that there were no empty cartridges or pellets recovered from the place of incident.
- The counsel further stated that the appellant was present in his village during the date of the incident for the same corroborative evidences were also provided.
- The counsel further stated that the alibi was refused or not considered by the Trial Court while pronouncing the conviction.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- The counsel on behalf of the respondent submitted that there has been no error to rely upon the statements made by the complainant and his mother.
- The counsel further stated that the statements were corroborated by independent evidences i.e., the seizure of firearm and empty cartridge.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The High Court and Trial Court laid more weightage upon the recovered bike and country made pistol and granted the conviction and sentence upon the appellant.
- The court further stated that the Trial Court and the High Court failed to take into consideration the statement made by the accused appellant under section 313 of the code of criminal procedure.
- The court relied upon the judgement made in the case[Reena Hazarika vs State of Assam, (2019) 13 SCC 289]and held that the right provided under the section acts as a statutory right and also a constitutional right as to fair trial under the Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
- The court further stated that the below courts have failed to scrutinize the statement made by the appellant accused under the section 313 of the code of criminal procedure. The court relied upon the judgement made in [Asraf Ali vs State of Assam, (2008) 16 SCC 328]and putforth the importance of section 313 of the code of criminal procedure so as to establish a direct dialogue between the court and accused.
- The court thus held that in the absence of independent evidences to be corroborated by the prosecution rose the ambiguity as t the recovery of the motor vehicle or the country made pistol too.
- The court stated that any plea made under section 313 of the code of criminal procedure by the accused should be negated by the prosecution satisfactorily which the prosecution in this case had failed to do the same.
- Thus, the court allowed for the appeal and the sentence and conviction passed by the below courts were set aside and the appellant was granted bail.
CONCLUSION
- Under the section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the accused has a right put forth the defence at the examination stage and then the prosecution has to negate such a defence beyond reasonable doubt. The section does not make it a procedural formality rather a right beyond statutory right amounting to constitutional right.
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
