Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. In support of the challenge against the order of acquittal, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has relied on the following decisions.

i. Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana, .

ii. State of U. P. v. Dr. R.P. Mittal, 1992 (2) Crimes 664 (SC).

iii. State of U. P. v. Lakhmi, .

iv. JT 1999 (5) SC 133.

v. Molai and Anr. v. State of M. P., .

vi. Joseph s/o Kooveli Poulo v. State of Kerala, .

10. The accused defended his case in person and in his lengthy and exhaustive arguments submitted that the oral, documentary as well as medical evidence brought before the Court clearly went to show that the prosecution failed to bring home the charge of offence of murder against him, beyond reasonable doubt. In fact, there was no evidence worth considering in support of the prosecution case. At the threshold he challenged the constitutional validity of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and submitted that the Investigating Officer went on fabricating the statements purported to be of various witnesses and on the basis of these unsigned statements he was taken in custody and put on trial. His fundamental right as guaranteed by the Constitution was infringed on the basis of such statements. When it was pointed out to him that the provisions of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, were in pari materia with the provisions of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 as amended by Act No. 26 of 1955, it was submitted by the respondent-accused that no certified copy of the said amendment of 1955 was on record and as a student of law in 1971 to 1973 he had not come across provisions of Section 162 of Code of 1898 on the lines of amended Code of 1973. The respondent was not obviously willing to accept the fallacy in his arguments. He proceeded to vehemently contend before us that the oral evidence on the basis of such statements recorded by the Investigating Officer could not be relied on to put him on trial as all these statements were recorded under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which were unconstitutional and therefore, the oral evidence recorded during the course of trial has to be outrightly rejected. It would be note-worthy at this stage that no such arguments were advanced before the trial Court nor any witness was examined in support of his defence.