Section 313 CrPC : Written statement filed under Clause (5) has to be treated in the light of evidence led by prosecution.

 

 “Once a written statement is filed by the accused under sub-Section (5) of the Section 313 CrPC and the Court marks it as an exhibit such statement must be treated as part of the accused’s statements under sub-Section (1) read with sub-Section (4) thereof”

            A Division Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justices S. Ravindra Bhatt and Dipankar Dutta gave relief to the Appellant who had been incarcerated for more than nine years in a case relating to murder.

        The appellant had been convicted under Section 302 of IPC for the murder and injuries to prosecution witnesses by the trial court as well as the High Court of Judicature at Bombay who confirmed the conviction.

            The trial court relying largely on the statements of injured prosecution witnesses convicted the appellant on the charge of murder and also on the charge of attempting to murder of injured witnesses under Sections 302 and 307 respectively. During the prosecution trial, eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the case whereas none was examined on behalf of the defence. However the appellant filed written statement as exhibit under Section 313(5) of CrPC.

            The appellant preferred appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court against the conviction but the same was dismissed devoid of any merit. The High Court made regrettable observation that –

1.        “the act could not be shown to have come in any of the exceptions enumerated in Section 300 of IPC;

2.        “it is neither the result of sudden provocation nor done in the heat of passion during quarrel amounting to murder; and that it had

3.        “no hesitation to hold that the death of Nandakishor is culpable homicide amounting to murder”.

            That is why the appellant, being aggrieved by the dismissal of appeal, approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court for consideration of the present appeal.

            The Supreme Court has said that the High Court and trial court has committed serious error in not considering the written statement (exhibit 96) as defence version filed by the appellant voluntarily under Section 313 (5) of CrPC. The written statement appeared to be containing incriminating materials as evidence against him. The Court also found probable, according to exhibit, that there could have been provocation at the instance of the victim who allegedly indulged in spitting on the appellant coupled with verbal abuse, whereafter other prosecuting witnesses sprang into action, resulting in a scuffle where both parties indulged in inflicting injuries on each other loss of life.

        Keeping mind, the well settled principle regarding Section 313 of CrPC, the Supreme Court viewed that the criminal Court proceeding under Clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 313 has to shoulder the onerous responsibility of scanning of evidence after the incriminating circumstances in the evidence against the accused and prepare relevant questions to extend opportunity to the accused to explain any such circumstances in the evidence that could be used against him.

        And also putting emphasis on the exercise of Section 313, the Court viewed that –

“instead of being ritualistic ought to  be realistic in the sense that it should the means for securing the ends of justice and instead of an aimless effort, the means towards the ends should be purposeful. Indeed, it is optional for the accused to explain the circumstances put to him under section 313, but the safeguard provided by it and the valuable right that it envisions, if availed of or exercised, could prove decisive and have an effect on the final outcome, which would in effect promote utility of the exercise rather than its futility.”

         “Once a written statement is filed by the accused under sub-Section (5) of the Section 313 CrPC and the Court marks it as an exhibit such statement must be treated as part of the accused’s statements under sub-Section (1) read with sub-Section (4) thereof” – Court added.

        The written statement has to be considered in the light of evidence led by the prosecution to appreciate the truthfulness or otherwise of such case and the contents of such statement weighed with the probabilities of the case either in favour of the accused or against him – Court observed.

        In this case, trial court omitted to consider whether the prosecution was justified in claiming that the offensive act amounts to culpable homicide amounting to murder or whether the appellant being guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, deserved punishment under Section 304 Part II of IPC.

        During trial, the Court considered the argument on behalf of appellant i.e he had exercised his right of private defence, though he exceeded such right, so the case would fall under Section 304 Part II IPC. But proceeded to overrule the argument by relying the testimony of injured prosecution witnesses.

            FACT OF THE CASE

On a fateful day victim, Nandkishor Korde was murdered by appellant and also three other victims received stab injuries caused by a knife. Soon after an FIR was lodged by mother of the victim. During the investigation, spot of the incident was found stained with blood and also recovered a blood-stained knife, a wooden stick stained with blood, three pairs of chappals, two spectacles and a blue dot pen.

After investigation, chargesheet was filed under Sections 302 and 307 IPC. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses but was examined on behalf of defence/appellant. However, a written statement was filed by him.

The Additional Session Judge largely relied on the statements of the injured witnesses to convict the appellant and held that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

The said judgment of Session Judge was challenged before a Division Bench of the  High Court who confirmed the confirmed the conviction.

The learned counsel for appellant argued –

i.          the Court below erred in convicting the appellant;

ii.        the Court below failed to appreciate that none of the other person (independent witnesses) were examined as prosecution witnesses, and therefore should be held to be fatal to the prosecution case;

iii.       the appellant being 58 years at the time of incident, it is improbable that he could freely inflict stab injuries on the victim and the others without anyone of the injured as well as the others present at the site;

iv.       it was necessary to establish, by examining independent witnesses, that it was appellant who came with the knife and holding it was on a stabbing spree resulting in the death of the victim and injury to the others;

v.         all eyewitnesses who deposed against the appellant were interested witnesses and therefore not credible and their testimony ought not to have been relied upon;

vi.       the courts below failed to take note that eyewitnesses were interested witnesses and it was a clear case of false implication by suppressing the original story of the actual incident;

vii.      no motive could be established for the appellant to assault the victim; knife was not recovered at the instance of the appellant under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 but seizure has  been shown to have been made at the site; and

viii.     the victim being the last to join the scuffle, there was no premeditation on the part of the appellant. The victim was not the target. He contended that conviction of the appellant under SECTION 302, IPC was erroneous on facts.

ix.       the learned counsel prayed for release of the appellant by converting the conviction from 302, IPC to section 304, Part II, IPC and sentencing him to the period already spent in custody on the strength of evidence that was made out a case punishable under section 304, Part II, IPC.

Also Read:

Wife of the deceased have greater interest than cousins or employees in prosecuting the accused persons.

Going through the facts of the case, the Court found out, the victim and the appellant had no quarrel with each other. It was between the appellant and other witness. The victim appeared in the scene from some other place all of a sudden, and thus not his target. The written statement envisioned an act of retaliation spurred by sudden provocation resulting in a quarrel as well as scuffle. The appellant too sustained injuries in the scuffle. It was a sudden quarrel which could have been provoked by the victim and other prosecution witnesses. That is why the incident clearly negate any suggestion of premeditation in mind.

The present case falls under exception 4 to Section 300 which says that culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted a cruel or unusual manner.

Therefore the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC and as such his conviction for murder and sentence of life imprisonment are set aside, the Hon’ble Supreme Court accorded.

However since the appellant has suffered imprisonment for more than nine years, the Court found it proper to convict him under Section 304 Part II and treat such incarceration as adequate punishment. Accordingly the appellant was released from custody.

Case: 

Premchand  Vs. The State Of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No.211 Of 2023)

Date of Judgment: 3/03/2023.

Click here to download judgment.

Also Read:

“ A Litigant, who approaches the Court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the Court as well as on the opposite party.”

Misconception of fact under IPC: Consent for sexual intercourse with a person with whom she is deeply in love on a promise that he would marry her on a later date, cannot be said to be given under a misconception of fact.