In a recent development, the Supreme Court, on January 4, underscored a significant limitation on the prosecution’s ability to establish facts during a trial. The court, comprising Justices B. R. Gavai, P.S. Narasimha, and Aravind Kumar, ruled in favor of the accused-appellant in a criminal appeal, declaring that the prosecution cannot introduce facts during a trial that were not disclosed by a witness in their statement to the police under Section 161 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The three-judge bench emphasized that any attempt by the prosecution to prove a fact through a witness during trial, which the witness had not previously stated to the police during the investigation, holds no significance. This landmark decision sets a clear precedent regarding the permissible scope of evidence in criminal trials.
The court’s dissatisfaction with the findings of the Punjab & Haryana High Court was evident, particularly in a case where one accused was convicted for murder while another co-accused was acquitted. The Supreme Court highlighted that insufficient evidence to prove the case against one co-accused cannot be used to implicate another.
The case in question involved Darshan Singh, accused of the murder of his estranged wife, Amrik Kaur, allegedly in collaboration with Rani Kaur. The prosecution argued that poison was administered on the night of May 18-19, 1999, leading to Amrik Kaur’s intentional death. However, the Supreme Court scrutinized the circumstantial evidence, stressing the need for cogent and firmly established circumstances to infer guilt.
Notably, the court cast doubt on the testimonies of key prosecution witnesses, pointing out omissions in their cross-examinations. Furthermore, the court held that if witnesses failed to mention an accused’s involvement in their statements under Section 161 of the CrPC, subsequent statements during trial could not be relied upon.
The court also addressed the burden of proof in cases involving offenses within the privacy of a house, drawing on the Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra case. It clarified that the burden on the accused is comparatively lighter but highlighted the duty of the accused to explain circumstances surrounding the death.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court concluded that the evidence failed to convincingly prove the presence of the accused and Rani Kaur in the house, emphasizing the importance of an unbroken chain of circumstances in cases relying solely on circumstantial evidence. The decision, in the case titled Darshan Singh vs. The State of Punjab, sets a precedent by emphasizing the critical limitations on the prosecution’s ability to introduce evidence during trial proceedings.
