SC: Delay in recording of Sec.161 CrPC Statements not always fatal

  

The Supreme Court has observed in one of its recent judgements that mere delay delay in recording the statements of an eye-witnesses by itself isn't sufficient basis for rejection of their testimonies.

The Top Court noted that if the witnesses feel terrorised and frightened and don't show-up for some time, the delay in recording their statements stands adequately explained.

Brief Facts of Case:

The present appellants has challenged the Calcutta High Court judgement by which their appeals preferred were dismissed and conviction and sentence granted by Trial Court had been confirmed.

In the appeal so filed in Supreme Court in aggrieve of HC Judgement, it was contended that the delay in recording the statements made by eye witnesses in this case under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 respectively makes the prosecution's case weak.

It was further contended that apart from the testimonies of said two witnesses, there was nothing on record to justify the conviction of the accused.

On the other hand, the Respondant-State justified the delay by stating that the terror unleashed by the accused was of such magnitude that the witnesses flew away in fear. The Ld. Counsel of the State submitted that it was only after appropriate steps were taken by the investigating machinery including the arrest of the accused that the witnesses came forward.

Supreme Court Observations

The Top Court noted that it is true that there was some delay in recording the statements of the concerned eye-witnesses but mere factum of delay by itself cannot result in rejection of their testimonies.

Admitting to the factor played by allleged terror generated by the appellants, the Top Court further observed:

"The material on record definitely establishes the fear created by the accused. If the witnesses felt terrorised and frightened and did not come forward for some time, the delay in recording their statements stood adequately explained. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that during the interregnum, the witnesses were carrying on their ordinary pursuits. Thus, the eye-witness account unfolded through PW18 and PW19 cannot be discarded. We have gone through their testimonies and are convinced that their statements were cogent, consistent and trustworthy."

Read Order Here:

 

 

SOURCE ; //www.latestlaws.com/

Social media is bold.

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!  

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure