Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 299 criminal procedure code in Mohd. Zakir Hussain vs The State, Nct Of Delhi on 16 November, 2023Matching Fragments
The examination of PW3 was conducted under Section 299 Cr.P.C. as the accused was declared as Proclaimed Offender vide order dated 26.04.2012 upon his non appearance.
PW-4 ASI Suresh Kumar being the IO of the case has deposed on the lines of investigation conducted by him. He deposed that on 28.07.2000, on receipt of copy of DD Bno.9B regarding accident, he along with Ct. Parmod went to spot and from there to Trauma Centre to collect the MLC of the injured Yaar Mohd., who was declared unfit for statement by the concerned doctor.
He further deposed that mechanical inspection of the scooter ws got conducted through Retd. SI Jai Singh vide his request Ex.PW4/E and he received the report Ex.PW4/E1. He further deposed that he collected the postmortem report, recorded the statement of the witnesses and prepared the charge-sheet.
The examination of PW4 was conducted under Section 299 Cr.P.C. as the accused was declared as Proclaimed Offender vide order dated 26.04.2012 upon his non appearance.
5. Summons were again issued to PW3 Sadhu Ram and PW4 ASI Suresh Kumar for their re-examination, as they were earlier examined under Section 299 Cr.P.C., when accused was P.O. But summons issued to PW3 Sadhu Ram received back with the report that he has expired and PW4 ASI Suresh Kumar was re-examined, who deposed on the same lines as earlier deposed by him.
6. After closure of prosecution evidence, statement of under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on 10.08.2017 in which appellant pleads innocence and false implication. He opted not to lead DE in his defence.
PW3 Sadhu Ram was examined under Section 299 Cr.P.C. when the accused was P.O. and later on summons issued to him received back with the report that he got expired. It is expedient to refer to the provision of Section 299 (1) Cr.P.C. which provides that the accused person is absconding and there is no immediate prospect of arresting him, the Court can examine any witness produced on behalf of prosecution in the absence of accused and record his depositions which can be given as evidence against him in any enquiry or trial, if the witness is dead or incapable of giving evidence. In the present case, statement of PW3 was recorded under Section 299 Cr.P.C. when accused was absconding. PW3 expired before he was summoned for his denovo statement after arrest of accused. In my opinion, all the ingredients of Section 299 (1) Cr.P.C. are complete and I find no Mohd. Zakir Hussain Vs. State reason not to rely upon the statement of PW3 Sadhu Ram by virtue of Section 299 (1) Cr.P.C.