Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

19. Before placing the subject for purchase of DPC in Purchase Committee Meeting held on 6.07.1983, as pointed out by the trial court, no survey was conducted nor any other method was adopted by first accused for ascertaining the then prevalent market rate of DPC. During questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., when the first accused was questioned about the then prevalent market rate of DPC, first accused stated that he was not aware of the same. Referring to the same, the High Court observed that it is an evasive reply and the same was taken as a piece of evidence against the accused to complete the chain of circumstances.

20. Insofar as contention taking the statement of first accused recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C., as an evidence it was submitted that the statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. cannot be taken as an incriminating evidence against the accused. Of course, the High Court in extenso referred to the statements of the first accused put to him in his cross-examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and observed as under:-

“A-1 did not utter a single word to assail that the market rate of DPC at Shillong at the relevant time was ranging from Rs.5/- to Rs.10/-. All that he said was that he was not aware of the market rate of a DPC at that time or that Rs.42.75 was accepted and approved rate of DPC. These evasive replies, taken together with evidence of PW-6 and PW-13 and item no. 7(17) of Ext. P-5, complete the link in the chain of circumstances against A-1”.
After so observing, the High Court held that those evasive replies under Section 313 Cr. P.C. taken together with the evidence complete the link in the chain of circumstances against A-1.

21. Where the accused gives evasive answers in his cross-examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., an adverse inference can be drawn against him. But such inference cannot be a substitute for the evidence which the prosecution must adduce to bring home the offence of the accused. The statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is not an evidence. In Balwant vs. State of U.P. (2008) 9 SCC 974, this Court held that conviction of the accused cannot be based merely on his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. which cannot be regarded as evidence. It is only the stand or version of the accused by way of explanation explaining the incriminating evidence/circumstances appearing against him. The statement made in defence by the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. can certainly be taken aid of to lend credence to other evidence led by the prosecution. Statements made under Section 313 Cr.P.C. must be considered not in isolation but in conjunction with the other prosecution evidence.