JAI PRAKASH TIWARI versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2022] 10 S.C.R. 198 · Decided: 04-08-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
198
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
JAI PRAKASH TIWARI
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No. 704 of 2018)
AUGUST 04, 2022
[N. V. RAMANA, CJI, KRISHNA MURARI AND
HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 313 – Power to examine
the accused – Object and scope of – Held: s. 313 confers a valuable
right upon an accused to establish his innocence – Purpose of s.
313 is to provide the accused a reasonable opportunity to explain
the adverse circumstances which have emerged against him during
the course of trial – Non-fulfilment of the true spirit of s. 313 may
ultimately cause grave prejudice to the accused and the court may
not have the benefit of all the necessary facts and circumstances to
arrive at a fair conclusion – Such an omission does not ipso facto
vitiate the trial, unless the accused fails to prove that grave prejudice
has been caused to him – On facts, prosecution case that accused
fired a gunshot at the complainant, who escaped the injury and the
accused fled the spot – Accused convicted and sentenced u/s.307
IPC and ss. 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 by the courts below –
Courts below failed to scrutinize the defence version put forward
by the appellant-accused in his statement u/s. 313– Furthermore,
the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt is upon the prosecution – Where an accused sets up a defence
or offers an explanation, he is not required to prove his defence
beyond a reasonable doubt but only by preponderance of
probabilities – It is the solemn duty of the courts below to consider
the defence of the accused, with caution and must be scrutinised by
application of mind by the judge – However, the courts below dealt
with the evidence of the accused in a casual manner – Furthermore,
in absence of independent evidence corroborating the statements
made by complainant, serious doubts regarding the recovery of the
alleged motorcycle and the country made pistol, no connection
proved between the alleged recovered items and the alleged incident,
and the plausible version put forward by the accused-appellant in
his s. 313 statement not been satisfactorily responded to by the
[2022] 10 S.C.R. 198
198
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
199
prosecution, the case against the accused cannot be sustained –
Prosecution case based on mere conjectures and surmises –
Evidence brought on record by the prosecution insufficient to prove
the case beyond reasonable doubt – Thus, the order passed by the
courts below set aside – Penal Code, 1860 – s. 307 – Arms Act,
1959 – ss. 25, 27.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 From the evidence on record, it is clear that,
apart from the complainant and his mother, the other independent
witnesses namely PW1, PW10 and PW11 have denied witnessing
the incident. Even, the Sub-Inspector PW9, in his cross
examination, stated that the said witnesses during their police
statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C, had indicated that they had
not seen the accused-appellant firing the shot. Under the above
circumstances, the only evidence available to prove the presence
of the accused at the scene, apart from the testimony of the
complainant himself, is that of PW3, his mother. Although, it was
submitted that the testimony of the said witness should not be
taken into consideration as she is an “interested” witness, it is
an established principle of law that a close relative cannot
automatically be characterized as an “interested” witness.
However, it is trite that even related witness statements need to
be scrutinized more carefully. [Para 9, 10][205-D-G]
1.2 The complainant clearly stated that his mother came to
the spot after the incident. On the other hand, in the chief
examination, his mother stated that she followed the complainant
when he went outside and therefore, she witnessed the incident.
In her cross-examination, she stated that she came outside when
she heard the gunshot. However, she saw the incident from the
verandah. Contradictions aside, it must be noted that the incident
took place at around 10:30 pm in the night. It is no-where
mentioned that the accused and PW3 were familiar to the extent
that she could recognize him in a fleeting moment while he was
speeding away on his bike. She also failed to provide any
discernable features of the accused-appellant. In fact, she
specifically stated that she was not acquainted with the accused
persons. It seems highly improbable that the mother of the
JAI PRAKASH TIWARI v. STATE OF MADHYA 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.