Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. On completion of the investigation, the Police filed the charge sheet and charge was framed against the appellant under section 302 IPC on 02.04.11. The statement of the accused was recorded on 22.07.2013 when the incriminating circumstances were put to him. He claimed innocence and chose to lead defence evidence where he examined himself under section 315 CrPC as DW-1

9. The prosecution examined a total of 16 witnesses, the main witnesses being PW-2, husband of the deceased and PW-4 the complainant.

17. Ld. Counsel points to the statement of the accused recorded under Section 315 Cr.P.C., wherein he claimed innocence and stated that he was working in Hotel Prince Colony, Paharganj in the year 2010. He knew deceased Sunita who was working with him in the aforesaid hotel. Her husband used to remain ill and he was not earning. The entire family, consisting of her husband and three children was dependant only on her income. The deceased was in the business of prostitution for earning extra income, and he used to arrange customers and also used to provide his rented room for the aforesaid purpose. On the day of the incident, she came to his room. Sometime thereafter, a customer came in the room from the adjoining house. Thereafter the deceased asked him to go from there and, accordingly, he left the room. When after sometime he came to the room, he saw that the deceased was lying unconscious, in an injured condition, and blood was oozing out from her injuries. He became scared and ran away.

22. Ld. Counsel points to the statement made by the accused in Court under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and his testimony under Section 315 Cr.P.C. She submits that they are contradictory; and he has failed to provide sufficient explanation with regard to the proceedings of the fateful day. She also points out that the accused even failed to give a description about the appearance of the alleged customer of the deceased in his cross examination by the Ld. APP.

23. Ms. Tiwari further submits that the accused claimed he was in the business of arranging customer for the deceased, yet he could not tell the house number from where the said customer came into his room. He merely states that it was an adjacent house. He merely states that the customer was aged about 40 years and he was clean shaved. Ms. Tiwari submits that the accused has, thus, failed to discharge the burden of proving the facts alleged by him, and he has been rightly convicted. Ld. Counsel places reliance on Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Versus State Of Maharashtra, (2006)10 Supreme Court Cases 681; State of Punjab Versus Karnail Singh, (2003) 11 Supreme Court Cases 271; State of West Bengal Versus Mir Mohammad Omar and others, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2988; State of Rajasthan Versus Thakur Singh, (2014) 12 SCC 211; and Balbir Singh Versus State, 168 (2010) Delhi Law Times 406 (DB), to press the aforesaid submissions.

29. There is a material contradiction in the statement made by the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., when compared with his statement recorded under Section 315 Cr.P.C. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he stated that the deceased came to his house with a customer, and asked him to go outside for two hours. However in his testimony recorded under Section 315 Cr.P.C., he states that the deceased came to his room, thereafter a customer came from the adjoining house, and the deceased asked him to leave. In view of the differing statements made by the accused, his testimony fails to inspire the confidence of this Court, and we therefore agree with the submission of Ms. Tiwari that the appellant has failed to discharge his burden under section 106 of Evidence Act.