LexSTATE OF PUNJAB versus SAWARAN SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
/ A STA TE OF PUNJAB v. SA WARAN SINGH JUL y 25, 2005 B [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.] Code. of Criminal Procedure, I 97 3-Section 3 I J~Purpose of-Held: The provision is meant to give opportunity to accused to explain the evidence C against him-But when during trial, he r,Joes not seriously deny the allegations, then any omission during statement under Section 3 I 3 is not fatal to the prosecution's case. According to the Prosecution, on 17.5.1992 the accused was apprehended and on his search a bag was found suspected to contain opium D and a sample was taken. The sample and remaining content of the recovered substance was sealed and taken into possession by the IO. The two sealed packets were handed over to PW-1 and kept by him in Malkhana. On 9.6.1992, PW-1 handed over the property to PW-4. Durin'g this period, there was no tampering with the seal of the packets. E The Sessions Judge found him guilty for offence punishable under Section 18 of the NDPS Act. The High Court acquitted hi"1 on.the ground that the evidence of PW-1 and PW-4 were not put to the accused while he was examined under Section JU CrPC and as such these items could not be used . / against the accused. Hence the present appeal. F Dispc)sing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. When PW-1 and PW-4 were examined as witnesses, the. accused did not seriously dispute .their evidence. The evidence of PW 1 and PW 4 was not challenged in the cross-examination except for a general suggestion that they had been deposing falsely. The accused had no case that G the seal was ever tamP4!red with by any person nor thatthere was any case of mistaken identity as regards the sample and that the report of the Chemical Analyst was not of the same sample taken from the accused. li.xcept making a general suggestion, the accused had completely admitted the evidence of PW-1 and PW-4 as regards the receipt of the sample, sealing of the same H 786 STA TE OF PUNJAB v. SAW ARAN SINGH 787 . and sending it to the Chemical Analyst. This was pointed out only to show A that the accused was not in any way prejudiced by the factof not ha".ing been questioned by making a specific reference-to the evidence of PW-I and . PW-4. (790-~ F, G) 2. The questioning of the .accused,under Section-313 is done to enable_ him to give an opportunity to explain any circumstances which· ha~e ~ome out B in the ~vidence agai~st him. The entire evidence is recorded iii his presence and he i.s given a full opportunity to cross-examine each and every witness examined on the prosecution side. He is giv-en copies of.al,Aocuments which are sought to be relied on by the prosecution. Apart from all these, as part of fair trial the accused is given the opportunity to give his explanation regarding . the e~idence adduced by the prosecution~. Ho~ever? it is not necessary that. the . C entire prosecution evidence need be put to him and answes:s elfoited fJOm the accused. If there were circumstances in the.evidence .which are adverse to the accused and tiis explanation would help the court evaluating the evidence projlerJy, the court should bring: th.e same to the nc.~tice of the accused to enable him tO give any explanation or answers for such adverse circumstance in the D evidence. Generally composite questions shall not be asked to the accused bundling many facts together. Questions must be such that any reasonable person in the position of the accused should be in a position to give a rational . explanation to the questions as asked: There shall no(be failure· of justice on account.ofan unfair trial. (791-E, F, G,.H;c792-A) ' -· State (Delhi Admn.) v. Dharampal, J2001) 10 SCC 372; Jai Dev v. State of Punjab, AIR (19~3) SC 612; Bakhshish Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR (1967) SC 752 and Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973] 2 SCC 793, referred to. . · .E 3. In the instant case, the accused was not in any way prejudiced by not F giving him an opportunity to answer specifically regarding the evidence of PW-1 and PW 4. I(at all, the ~vidence of PW-1 and PW-4 was recorded in his presence, he had the opportunity to, cross-examine the witnesses but despite this ·he did not specifically cro~s~examine these two witnesses in respect of the facts.deposed by them .. The Single J°'Jge seriously erred. in holding that the evidence of PW-1 and PW-4 could not have been used· against .G the acciJSed. The acquittal of the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.