सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने सिख़ी नाबालिग भतीजी के बलात्कार‑हत्या के आरोपी को बरी किया, कहा सेक्शन 313 से कमजोर साक्ष्य नहीं बचा पाएगा

IndiaSC acquits man in minor niece's rape-murder, says CrPC Section 313 can't rescue weak prosecution

The bench said an adverse inference could be drawn only when the incriminating material had been fully established and the accused offered no explanation.

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court recently acquitted a Sikkim man convicted of raping and murdering his minor niece, saying an accused's statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) cannot rescue the prosecution when its own chain of circumstantial evidence is incomplete and unconvincing.

A bench comprising Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S Chandurkar, in its October 1 verdict, acquitted Santosh Gurung of charges under Sections 376(2)(i) (rape), 302 (murder) and 201 (destruction of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. He had been sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court.

The prosecution alleged that Gurung took away his minor niece on November 6, 2013, sexually assaulted her and throttled her to death. A missing complaint was filed on November 12, 2013, while an FIR was lodged on May 13, 2014, after a long delay.

The Sessions Court convicted him and the High Court upheld the conviction. The Supreme Court, however, found the evidence woefully short and acquitted him.

The court noted that witnesses, including the victim's mother, were unsure about the last-seen evidence. It also said the recovery of a shawl under Section 27 of the Evidence Act from a place ordinarily visible to others had to be viewed with caution. The FSL report failed to advance the prosecution's case, while ownership of the shawl was also doubtful.

The top court explained the law on Section 313 CrPC, citing Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya v State of Rajasthan (2013).

"Only if an accused fails to offer reasonable explanation in discharge of burden placed on him in a case resting on circumstantial evidence, same would provide an additional link in chain of circumstances proved against him. Thus accused's silence or failure to provide any reasonable explanation can merely act as additional link that would complete chain. This, however, would not shift burden of proof on an accused in criminal trial," it noted.

The bench said an adverse inference could be drawn only when the incriminating material had been fully established and the accused offered no explanation. The right to remain silent could not be used against him to fill gaps left by the prosecution.

"When it is found that chain of circumstances relied upon by prosecution is not complete and that it does not inspire confidence for its acceptance, response of accused recorded in his statement under Section 313 CrPC cannot be used against him, especially when other evidence is not found to be satisfactory pointing out to guilt of his alone and none other," the apex court said.

While acknowledging the tragic end suffered by the victim, the bench concluded that the material did not justify the conviction and that Gurung was entitled to the benefit of doubt. The appeal filed by Gurung was allowed and his conviction was accordingly set aside.

The New Indian Express

www.newindianexpress.com

Powered by Nyaya 247 News