LexVIJAYA SINGH & ANR. versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 906 : 2024 INSC 905 Vijaya Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand (Criminal Appeal No. 122 of 2013) 25 November 2024 [Bela Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the Criminal Appeal filed by the Appellants challenging the conviction under Section 302/201 IPC can be entertained in the facts and circumstances of the case. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 164 – Principles governing circumstantial evidence reiterated – On facts and circumstances, held that the Trial Court and the High Court have correctly appreciated the evidence, and the conviction of the Appellant upheld: Held: It is a well settled principle of law that when a case is based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances proved must point unequivocally to the guilt of the accused and must be incompatible with any theory of being innocent – There are no material contradictions in the versions of the witnesses – The evidence of every witness cannot be subject to the same level of scrutiny and the Court must be alive to the social position of the witness – Further, it is trite law that mere presence of minor variations is not fatal to the case of the prosecution – It is so because natural testimony is bound to have variations – The question is whether the variations or contradictions could be termed as fatal to the case of the prosecution – The evidence adduced before the Court is to be examined as a whole and not in isolation – This principle assumes greater importance in cases which are based on circumstantial evidence as in the absence of direct evidence of the offence, the Court is required to analyze the proved circumstances in a collective sense to arrive at a reasonable finding – In such cases, the finding of the Court is essentially an irresistible inference which is drawn from the proved material on record. [Paras 11, 25, 39] *Author [2024] 11 S.C.R. 907 Vijaya Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand Jurisprudence concerning statements under Section 164 CrPC – Discussed: Held: Statement under Section 164 CrPC is not considered as a substantive piece of evidence, as substantive oral evidence is one which is deposed before the Court and is subjected to cross- examination – However, Section 157 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 makes it clear that a statement under Section 164 CrPC could be used for both corroboration and contradiction – It could be used to corroborate the testimonies of other witnesses – The need for recording the statement of a witness under Section 164 CrPC arises when the witness appears to be connected to the accused and is prone to changing his version at a later stage due to influence – Considering the conceptual requirement of recording a statement before a Judicial Magistrate during the course of investigation and the utility thereof, as prescribed in Section 157 of Evidence Act, it could be observed that a statement under Section 164, although not a substantive piece of evidence, not only meets the test of relevancy but could also be used for the purposes of contradiction and corroboration – A statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC serves a special purpose in a criminal investigation as a greater amount of credibility is attached to it for being recorded by a Judicial Magistrate and not by the Investigating Officer – A statement under Section 164 CrPC is not subjected to the constraints attached with a statement under Section 161 CrPC and the vigour of Section 162 CrPC does not apply to a statement under Section 164 CrPC – Therefore, it must be considered on a better footing – However, relevancy, admissibility and reliability are distinct concepts in the realm of the law of evidence – The weight to be attached to such a statement (reliability thereof) is to be determined by the Court on a case-to-case basis and the same would depend to some extent upon whether the witness has remained true to the statement or has resiled from it, but it would not be a conclusive factor. [Paras 27, 28] List of Acts Penal Code, 1860; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. List of Keywords Circumstantial evidence; 164 statement. 908 [2024] 11 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 122 of 2013 From the Judgment and Order dated 29.08.2012 of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in CRLA No. 148 of 2004 Appearances for Par
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.