9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Acceptance of evidence through affidavit in a criminal trial. 2. Relevance of police officials' affidavits in prosecution cases. 3. Examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. Impact of not putting formal evidence to the accused during examination. 5. Rectification of procedural lapses in criminal proceedings. 1. Acceptance of Evidence through Affidavit: In this case, the High Court rejected the evidence of a policeman tendered through an affidavit, leading to the quashing of the conviction and sentence of the accused. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by the State of Punjab, emphasizing the permissibility of presenting evidence through affidavits under Section 296 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court highlighted that evidence of a formal character can be given by affidavit and read in proceedings, subject to exceptions. The judgment cited precedents where such evidence was accepted, emphasizing the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of this method. 2. Relevance of Police Officials' Affidavits: The judgment discussed the importance of police officials' affidavits in prosecution cases, especially when the evidence is of a formal nature. It clarified that if the evidence pertains to formalities during the investigation, it can be tendered through affidavits. The Court noted that the defense did not dispute the formal nature of the evidence in this case, as there was no request to summon the deponents of the affidavits for examination. The judgment criticized the High Court's decision to set aside the conviction based on the non-examination of police officials, highlighting the procedural aspect of presenting such evidence. 3. Examination under Section 313 of the Code: The judgment addressed the requirement of examining the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It noted that the failure to put formal evidence to the accused during examination does not automatically vitiate the proceedings. The Court emphasized that the omission should not result in setting aside the conviction unless it significantly impacts the case. The judgment cited previous rulings to support the notion that prejudice must be established by the accused to challenge such omissions during examination. 4. Impact of Not Putting Formal Evidence to the Accused: The judgment discussed the significance of not putting formal evidence to the accused during examination under Section 313 of the Code. It highlighted that if the remaining evidence is adequate to prove the guilt of the accused, the omission of certain formalities may not be critical. The Court stressed that the appellate or revisional courts should assess the impact of such lapses on the overall case and determine if rectification is possible or necessary based on the circumstances. 5. Rectification of Procedural Lapses: The judgment concluded by emphasizing the need to rectify procedural lapses in criminal proceedings. It cited previous cases to illustrate that some leniency can be applied in addressing objections raised by the accused regarding procedural irregularities. The Court highlighted that the revisional court should not be overly concerned with minor omissions, especially when the evidence in question is of a formal nature. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and remitting the revision for fresh consideration with proper hearing opportunities for both parties.
|
