Current Affairs

Section 299 of CrPC

« »

Source: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently in case of Sukhpal Singh v. NCT of Delhi ruled that if prosecution witnesses cannot be located and brought to the witness box to testify during trial after the accused has been arrested, their statements recorded in the absence of the accused can be regarded as substantive evidence if it is according to Section 299 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).

The appellant, married to Usha with three children, left her due to marital issues, residing in his village.
Usha was found dead with visible injuries, and a note allegedly written by Sukhpal was discovered at the crime scene.
A key witness, Ashok Kumar Pathak, (their neighbor) couldn't be located for trial, but his earlier deposition was considered as evidence.
The confession notes and handwriting analysis formed the crux of the prosecution's case, leading to Sukhpal's conviction.
The court found Sukhpal guilty based on the established presence of Sukhpal at the scene of the crime and his subsequent absconding, indicating a guilty conscience.
The appellant's filled appeal, the High Court upheld the conviction, affirming the significance of the confession note as proof of Sukhpal's involvement.
The prosecution successfully demonstrated Sukhpal's presence at the crime scene and his subsequent attempt to evade justice, leading to his conviction.
The case highlights the reliance on circumstantial evidence and expert analysis in establishing guilt in the absence of direct witnesses.
The appeal was filed in the Supreme Court, the Court affirmed the decision of the High Court and Trial Court and the appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, upheld the rulings of the High Court and Trial Court, emphasizing that under Section 299 of the CrPC if an accused person has absconded and there's no immediate prospect of arresting them, the statements of prosecution witnesses recorded in their absence can be utilized against the accused upon their subsequent arrest in case the prosecution witness is unavailable.
Further the Court observed that viewed in light of the provisions of Section 299 CrPC read with Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA), trial Court was justified in holding that the statement of Ashok Kumar Pathak (prosecution witness) recorded in these proceedings was fit to be read as a piece of substantive evidence.
The Supreme Court concurs with the findings recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court on this vital aspect of the matter.

About:
Section 299 of CrPC deals with the record of evidence in absence of accused.
Section 299 of CrPC is now outlined in Section 335 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

This Section states that if it is proved that an accused person has absconded, and that there is no immediate prospect of arresting him, the Court competent to try , or commit for trial such person for the offence complained of may, in his absence, examine the witnesses (if any) produced on behalf of the prosecution, and record their depositions and any such deposition may, on the arrest of such person, be given in evidence against him on the inquiry into, or trial for, the offence with which he is charged, if the deponent is dead or incapable of giving evidence or cannot be found or his presence cannot be procured without an amount of delay, expense or inconvenience which, under the circumstances of the case, would be unreasonable.
If it appears that an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life has been committed by some person or persons unknown, the High Court or the Sessions Judge may direct that any Magistrate of the first class shall hold an inquiry and examine any witnesses who can give evidence concerning the offence and any depositions so taken may be given in evidence against any person who is subsequently accused of the offence, if the deponent is dead or incapable of giving evidence or beyond the limits of India.

In the case of Nirmal Singh v. State of Haryana (200), the Supreme Court deliberated on the circumstances under which the statement of a witness recorded under Section 299 of the CrPC would be deemed admissible under Section 33 of IEA. Section 299 of the CrPC is regarded as an exception to Section 33 of the IEA.
- This exception implies that statements of witnesses recorded under Section 299 of the CrPC are not subject to the restrictions imposed by Section 33 of the IEA.
- Essentially, evidence obtained through statements recorded under Section 299 of the CrPC can be legally admissible, notwithstanding the absence of an opportunity for cross-examination.

About:

Section 33 of IEA pertains to the admissibility of evidence given by a witness in a previous judicial proceeding or before a person authorized by law to take evidence, for the purpose of proving the truth of the facts stated in a subsequent judicial proceeding.
This provision is typically invoked when the witness is unavailable to testify in the subsequent proceeding due to reasons such as death, inability to be located, incapacity to give evidence, or deliberate efforts by the adverse party to prevent their testimony.

Section 33 of IEA deals with relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in subsequent proceedings, the truth of facts therein stated.
Evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding, or before any person authorized by law to take it, is relevant for the purpose of proving, in a subsequent judicial proceeding, or in a later stage of the same judicial proceeding, the truth of the facts which it states, when the witness is dead or cannot be found, or is incapable of giving evidence, or is kept out of the way by the adverse party, or if his presence cannot be obtained without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, the Court considers unreasonable.
Provisos to this Section provides that the proceeding was between the same parties or their representatives in interest; that the adverse party in the first proceeding had the right and opportunity to cross-examine.
That the questions in issue were substantially the same in the first as in the second proceeding.