Summary
A witness’s sworn deposition recorded during the accused’s prolonged abscondence was admissible under Section 299 CrPC when genuine later efforts could not locate him. The original record disproved the claim that only a police statement had been exhibited. Motive, last-seen evidence, homicidal death, a proved handwritten confession, abscondence and failure to explain the established circumstances formed a complete chain. The murder conviction was affirmed and surrender directed within sixty days.
Issues
- Whether the absent witness’s earlier sworn deposition satisfied Section 299 CrPC.
- Whether the handwriting and other circumstances established a complete chain of guilt.
- Whether the accused adequately explained the death occurring in his exclusive company.
Provisions considered
- Section 299, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Recording in absence requires proof of abscondence and no immediate prospect of arrest; later use requires proof of a statutory unavailability condition. Those safeguards were satisfied on this record. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 38, 39)
- Section 33, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Section 299 operates as a strictly construed exception concerning prior evidence without cross-examination; prosecution must establish the governing prerequisites. (¶¶ 32, 33, 39)
- Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872After prosecution established the appellant’s exclusive company with the deceased and the incriminating chain, his failure to explain her strangulation within the room supported guilt. (¶¶ 45, 46, 47, 48)
Held
- Section 299 demands conjunctive proof of abscondence and absence of an immediate prospect of arrest before recording prosecution depositions. Subsequent substantive use requires proof of death, incapacity, inability to find the witness or another stated unavailability ground. Being exceptional, the safeguards require strict compliance. (¶¶ 30, 31, 32, 33)
- The original record showed a sworn, signed judicial deposition by the complainant, not merely an exhibited Section 161 police statement. The accused had been proclaimed and could not be traced despite efforts at his known village address and elsewhere. After his arrest about ten years later, genuine attempts could not locate the witness, making the deposition usable. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 34, 38, 39)
- The witness established the marital discord and motive, the appellant’s presence with the deceased before the death, discovery of the body and a confession note whose handwriting he knew from working with the appellant. The deceased’s sister and employer corroborated relevant aspects, while expert evidence proved the comparison with admitted and specimen writings. (¶¶ 34, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 44)
- The combined chain included motive, last-seen company, medically established homicidal strangulation, the confession note, prolonged abscondence and inadequate explanations. Once exclusive presence and these circumstances were established, a bald denial did not meet the special-knowledge burden concerning the death inside the room. (¶¶ 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48)
- The murder conviction was affirmed and appeal dismissed. Bail bonds were cancelled, with surrender required within sixty days to serve the remaining sentence; failure would require the trial court to secure his apprehension. (¶¶ 49, 50, 51, 52, 53)
Result
Appeal dismissed; murder conviction affirmed. Bail cancelled; surrender directed within sixty days, failing which the trial court must secure apprehension.