Published on: 1 August 2023 at 23:00 IST
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: Arvind Kumar V. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023)
Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that statements made in context of the criminal act are relevant for invoking the Doctrine of Res Gestae incorporated in Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is held that the Theory of Crime must be established for fixing responsibility of the Crime. Hence, the statement of the Prosecution Witness must corroborate the facts leading to the alleged Criminal Act. Thus, the Theory Of Crime must consistent with normal human conduct for invoking Doctrine of Res Gestae as a rule of Law of Evidence. It is held that is an exception to hearsay rule of evidence that hearsay evidence is not admissible. It is a spontaneous declaration made by a person immediately after an event and before the mind has an opportunity to conjure a false story.
19. What remains is the statement attributed to the appellant and the response of PW-12 to the appellant’s statement. These statements were read in evidence in view of Section 6 of the Evidence Act. According to the prosecution witness PW-13-Karim Baksh, after the firing was heard, the appellant was heard telling PW-12 that “Madam aapne yeh kya karva diya, Mere to bache barbad ho jayenge”. Reply of Shashi Bala was:“tum phikr mat karo may bhi tumhare saath hu, court tak tumhara saath dungi”. The only other witness who deposed about such statements is PW-5 Zahir Ahmed. According to him, he heard the appellant telling PW-12 “Madam, apane isko marva diya ab mera kya hoga”. Both the witnesses have stated that they heard the cry “Mujhe bachao”.
Surprisingly, PW-25, who claims to have seen the incident has not deposed about any such statements made by the appellant, PW-12 and the deceased. PW-5 claims to have attended the funeral of the deceased. He admitted that as per the instructions of the father of the deceased, he met an inspector of the Crime Branch two months after the incident when his statement was recorded. Till that time, he did not report anything to the police about what he heard. PW-13 stated that PW-6, PW-17 and certain other persons were present when he heard the accused making aforesaid statements. Both PW-6 and PW-17 did not support the prosecution.
The others who were present according to PW-13 were not examined by the prosecution. Therefore, the version of the prosecution about the appellant and PW-12 making such statements does not inspire confidence.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra