2001 (7) TMI 1302 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
The issue involves the interpretation of Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, specifically whether the statement of a prosecution witness without cross-examination constitutes 'evidence' within the meaning of the said provision.

Judgment Details:

The case revolved around an FIR lodged by the father of the prosecutrix, alleging abduction and rape. The appellants were arraigned as additional accused based on an application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. The High Court dismissed the revision application challenging this decision, leading to the present appeal.

Interpretation of 'Evidence' under Section 319:

The appellant contended that 'evidence' in Section 319 includes examination-in-chief and cross-examination of witnesses. Conflicting views existed among High Courts on whether a witness statement without cross-examination is admissible as evidence. The Court referred to Halsbury's Laws of India and previous judgments to analyze this issue.

Analysis of Section 319 and Evidence Act:

Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. empowers the court to proceed against other persons appearing guilty. The Court highlighted that evidence includes statements permitted by the court, and once recorded, forms part of the evidence. The accused's right to cross-examine arises during trial, not before being added as an accused under Section 319.

Precedents and Court's Interpretation:

The Court cited previous cases to support its interpretation. It clarified that the term 'evidence' in Section 319 is broad and includes material collected by investigating officers. The power under Section 319 is to be sparingly used but should not prevent adding accused based on prima facie evidence.

Conclusion:

The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the power under Section 319 should be used for compelling reasons and that witness statements without cross-examination can be considered as evidence for the purpose of adding accused persons.