LexRAGHUVEER SHARAN versus DISTRICT SAHAKARI KRISHI GRAMIN VIKAS BANK & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 361 : 2024 INSC 681 Raghuveer Sharan v. District Sahakari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No(s). 2764 of 2024) 10 September 2024 [Prashant Kumar Mishra* and Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is entitled for protection under Section 132 of the Evidence Act, 1872 as his statement was recorded earlier at the pre-summoning stage as a witness for the complainant/respondent bank. Headnotes† Evidence Act, 1872 – s.132 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 319 – A criminal complaint was filed, the appellant was also examined as one of the witnesses of the respondent bank, wherein he admitted having changed the tenure of the Fixed Deposit from 3 years to 10 years and later on to 15 years – This statement of the appellant was recorded at the pre-summoning stage on 19.03.2016 – Subsequently, during trial, PW-1 was examined in-chief on 31.03.2022 wherein he made the statement that it was the appellant who made the interpolation in the Fixed Deposit document – Thereafter, the respondent-bank submitted an application u/s. 319 Cr.P.C. for arraying the appellant as additional accused and same was allowed – Appellant preferred criminal revision petition, which was dismissed – Correctness: Held: In the instant case, the appellant was summoned as an additional accused u/s. 319 of the Cr.P.C. not only on the basis of his pre-summoning statement but on the basis of the statement of PW-1 who was examined as a witness on 31.03.2022 – Had the appellant been proposed as an additional accused on the basis of his statement, he would have been summoned immediately after his pre-summoning statement was recorded on 19.03.2016 – Thus, the present is a case where the appellant has been summoned as an additional accused on the basis of the statement of PW1 – * Author 362 [2024] 9 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports The proviso to Section 132 offers statutory immunity against self- incrimination providing that no such answer, which a witness shall be compelled to give, shall subject him to any arrest or prosecution or be proved against him in any criminal proceedings except a prosecution for giving false evidence by such answer – Thus, the only protection available is, a witness cannot be subjected to prosecution on the basis of his own statement – It nowhere provides that there is complete and unfettered immunity to a person even if there is other substantial evidence or material against him proving his prima facie involvement – Reverting to the issue as to whether there is prima facie material against the appellant for summoning him as an accused in exercise of power u/s. 319 Cr.P.C. – It is to be seen that in his statement during trial recorded on 31.03.2022, PW-1 has categorically stated in para 5 of the examination-in-chief that the interpolations by applying fluid have been made under the initials and signatures of the appellant – Thus, there is prima facie material for exercise of power u/s. 319 Cr.P.C. [Paras 24, 25, 27] Evidence Act, 1872 – Proviso to Section 132: Held: The proviso to Section 132 of the Act is based on the maxim nemo Tenetur prodere seipsum i.e. no one is bound to criminate himself and to place himself in peril – In this regard the law in England, (with certain exceptions) is that a witness need not answer any question, the tendency of which is to expose the witness, or to feed hand of the witness, to any criminal charge, penalty or forfeiture – The privilege is based on the principle of encouraging all persons to come forward with evidence, by protecting them, as far as possible, from injury or needless annoyance in consequence of so doing – This absolute privilege, in some cases tended to bring about a failure of justice, for the allowance of the excuse, particularly when the matter to which the question related was in the knowledge solely of the witness, deprived the court of the information which was essential to its arriving at a right decision – In order to avoid this inconvenience, Section 132 of the Act, withdrew this absolute privilege and affords only a qualified privilege – The witness is deprived of the privilege of claiming excuse from testifying altogether; but, while subjecting him to compulsion, the legislature, in order to remove any inducement to falsehood, declared that evidence so obtained should not be used against
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.