The Supreme Court of India recently set aside the conviction of a man under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) due to procedural lapses in handling the witness contradiction process. The case, Vinod Kumar vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), highlighted the importance of correctly proving and marking Section 161 CrPC statements before using them for contradiction in court.
Background of the Case
Vinod Kumar, the appellant, was convicted for the murder of one Dharminder and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Sessions Court, which was later upheld by the High Court of Delhi. The prosecution’s case was based on circumstantial evidence, primarily relying on the last seen theory and the accused's inconsistent responses.
However, the Supreme Court found that the trial court failed to properly follow legal procedures when using Section 161 CrPC statements for contradicting prosecution witnesses during cross-examination.
Read Also:- Supreme Court: No Time Limit for Enforcing Perpetual Injunction Decrees
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, ruled that the trial court erred in its approach by merely reproducing the contradicted portions of the witness's Section 161 CrPC statements in brackets without formally proving them through the investigating officer.
"The portion of the prior statement shown to the witness for contradicting the witness must be proved through the investigating officer. Unless the said portion of the prior statement used for contradiction is duly proved, it cannot be reproduced in the deposition of the witnesses." – Supreme Court.
The Court further emphasized that the correct procedure requires the Trial Judge to mark the portions of the prior statement used for contradiction as AA, BB, etc., but these marked portions should not form part of the deposition unless duly proved.
Procedural Lapses Identified by the Court
Failure to Prove Section 161 CrPC Statements: The prosecution used statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC during the witness cross-examination but failed to prove them through the investigating officer.
Improper Marking of Contradicted Statements: Instead of marking the statements separately as per legal procedure, the trial court simply reproduced them in brackets, making them part of the witness deposition without proof.
Contradictions in Witness Testimonies: The primary witnesses (PW-1 and PW-3) gave inconsistent statements, and their testimonies had significant omissions and contradictions.
Circumstantial Evidence Not Fully Established: The case was built on circumstantial evidence, but the court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish key elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Confirms Meghalaya Government's Rightful Dissolution of CMJ University
Since two crucial circumstances forming the chain of evidence were not proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court held that the conviction could not be sustained.
"When the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. There must be a chain of circumstances so complete as not to leave any ground for any conclusion inconsistent with the innocence of the accused." – Supreme Court.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court quashed the conviction of Vinod Kumar and acquitted him of all charges. The bail bonds were canceled, and the appellant was set free.
This ruling reinforces the importance of proper legal procedures in criminal trials. The decision serves as a guiding precedent for trial courts, ensuring that:
- Witness contradiction using Section 161 CrPC statements must be properly introduced through the investigating officer.
- Statements must be marked separately and not included directly in depositions unless duly proved.
- Circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain to sustain a conviction.
This landmark judgment underscores the Supreme Court’s commitment to ensuring fairness in criminal trials by strictly adhering to procedural law.
Case Title: Vinod Kumar versus State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
