I have perused the 313 Cr. P.C. statements of the appellants recorded by the learned Judge. While recording the 313 Cr. P.C. statements of the appellants, the learned Judge did not frame proper questions. The material part of the incriminating evidence adduced by the prosecution was not put to the appellants. In this context, it is necessary to see some of the questions framed by the learned Judge. As stated above, the proof of the identity of the appellants, being the perpetrators of the crime, was the fact in issue. The learned Judge was required to frame proper questions on the basis of the available evidence of the witnesses with regard to their identification. As stated above, the identification of the appellants was established by pointing out their photographs to the prosecutrix. It was not put to the appellants that they were identified by the victim before the Court in a particular manner. The incriminating part of her evidence with regard to the identification of the appellants in the Test Identification Parade was not specifically put to the appellants. It is further seen that the CA reports and the DNA report, being the important pieces of evidence, ought to have been put to them specifically in their 313 statements. Question No. 35 is common for both the appellants. It needs to be extracted. It is as follows:
“Q. No. 35. It has come in the evidence of PW-10 Satish K. Farkade (Ex.97) during investigation he prepared spot panchanama, seizure panchanama. He seized motor cycle, sickle, chapple, godahdi, clothes on the person of victim and muddemal sent for C.A. and obtain C.A. report. What do you have to state about it ?”{Para 29}
30. Perusal of this question would show that the incriminating material in the form of CA reports was put to the appellants in this manner. Perusal of 313 Cr. P.C. statements of the appellants would show that the DNA report was not at all put to them. Even if the appellants had admitted the DNA report, the learned Judge was required to put the same to the appellants in their 313 Cr. P.C. statements. It needs to be stated that, in this case, the appellants have not admitted the DNA report. It is pertinent to mention that, time and again, it has been observed that proper care is not taken while framing the questions in the 313 Cr. P.C. statement of the accused on the basis of the incriminating material. Sometimes, the composite questions are framed. The answer to the part of the question may be in the affirmative and the answer to the part of the question may be in the negative. Such a composite question needs to be avoided. The appellants are the rustic villagers. Similarly, the victim is also a rustic villager. The incriminating circumstances related to the CA and DNA reports had not been put to them. Failure of the learned Judge to follow the provisions of law has caused miscarriage of justice. It has prejudiced not only the appellants but also the victim.
31. In this case, the DNA report has not been put to the appellants. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116 : AIR 1984 SC 1622] has held that incriminating piece of evidence, if not put to the accused in his 313 Cr. P.C. statement, cannot be made the basis of the conviction of the accused. It has to be excluded from consideration. It is to be noted that, while recording the evidence, the learned Prosecutor and the learned Judge adopted a very casual and careless approach. The DNA Expert and the Chemical Analyzer have not been examined. The learned Judge, while examining the accused under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C., did not even care to frame a proper question and put the DNA report to the accused so as to enable them to explain it. This has caused prejudice to the appellants. Similarly, it has proved prejudicial to the prosecutrix, who had suffered the ordeal of a horrible incident. She was not at fault. This has resulted into miscarriage of justice.
In the High Court of Bombay
(Before G.A. Sanap, J.)
Criminal Appeal No. 155 of 2022
Puranlal Sakaru Dhurve. Vs State of Maharashtra,
Criminal Appeal No. 155 of 2022 and Criminal Appeal No. 352 of 2022
Decided on September 30, 2024
Citation: 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3437.
Read full Judgment here: Click here.
No comments:
Post a Comment