Admissibility of Absconding Accused’s Statements Under Section 299 CrPC | Sukhpal Singh v. NCT of Delhi

This article has been written by Ananya Shruti, First-year BBA. LL.B student, Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad.

In Sukhpal Singh v. NCT of Delhi (2024 LiveLaw (SC) 359), the issue has been whether statements recorded under Section 299 CrPC in the absence of an accused can be used as substantive evidence during trial. The Supreme Court of India held that the said evidence can be used as substantive evidence, provided the requirements of Section 299 CrPC are fulfilled. These circumstances encompass proving that the accused was absconding and that the witness could not be produced, with reasonable efforts failing to bring them due to death, unavailability, or other practical difficulties. The judgment thus highlights balancing the rights of the accused to a fair trial against the necessity to preserve important evidence to avoid a miscarriage of justice.

This landmark judgment clarifies the application of Section 299 CrPC and reinforces its utility in dealing with problems in criminal trials where the accused has absconded.

KEYWORDS:, Jurisprudence, Supreme Court, Code of criminal procedure (CrPC), Section 299, Evidence, Accused, Absconding, Arrest

INTRODUCTION

The case of Sukhpal Singh v. NCT of Delhi marks a significant ruling in Indian criminal jurisprudence concerning the admissibility of witness statements recorded in the absence of the accused under Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Supreme Court’s judgment, delivered in 2024, addresses the procedural nuances and evidentiary value of such statements while balancing the rights of the accused and the practical difficulties faced by the prosecution in certain cases. This article delves into the background, legal principles, court observations, and implications of the judgment in detail.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Sukhpal Singh was accused of an offense under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to murder. Following the alleged commission of the crime, Singh absconded, evading arrest and trial proceedings. His prolonged absence led the trial court to invoke Section 299 CrPC, a provision that allows for the recording of evidence in the absence of the accused under specific conditions.

The key circumstances of the case included:

• Absconding of the Accused: Singh’s continued evasion compelled the court to proceed under Section 299 CrPC.
• Recording of Witness Statements: Witnesses, including the complainant and other individuals with knowledge of the alleged crime, testified in Singh’s absence. Their statements were recorded as evidence by the trial court.
• Arrest of the Accused: Singh was eventually apprehended after several years. During his trial, the statements recorded under Section 299 CrPC were introduced as substantive evidence against him.

This raised critical legal questions regarding the admissibility of such evidence and its impact on the accused’s right to a fair trial.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK: SECTION 299 CRPC

Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure makes provision for the recording of evidence in the case of an absent accused person and where he cannot be brought before the court. The portion of the section is as follows:

• It appears that an accused person has absconded and there is no likelihood of his arrest in the near future, the court may record the evidence of the witnesses in the absence of such accused person.
• The substantive evidence during the trial may be made up of recorded evidence under certain conditions:
• The witness is dead, or
• The witness cannot be found, or
• The witness is incapable of giving evidence, or
• The witness’s presence cannot be obtained without unreasonable delay or expense.

This ensures that justice is not unduly delayed because of the absence of the accused, yet the rights of the accused are safeguarded when they are finally caught.

CORE ISSUES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court was called upon to address the following key issues:

• Admissibility of Evidence: Whether the statements recorded under Section 299 CrPC could be admitted as substantive evidence against the accused during the trial.
• Conditions for Admissibility: Whether the prosecution had fulfilled the requirements stipulated under Section 299 CrPC for the admissibility of such evidence.
• Fair Trial Concerns: Whether the use of such evidence compromised the accused’s right to a fair trial, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

OBSERVATIONS AND RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court of India had upheld the orders of the lower courts and provided prima facie reasoning on each of the core issues.

1. Permissibility of Statements Recorded Under Section 299 CrPC

The Supreme Court reiterated that statements recorded in the absence of the accused are admissible as substantive evidence when conditions under Section 299 CrPC are satisfied. It cited:

• Section 299 CrPC aims to prevent the loss of material evidence where the accused is absent for a long time
• The provision prevents cases from becoming ” die cases” due to death, shifting of witnesses, etc.
• The presence of such evidence does not violate the rights of the accused if principles of natural justice are followed.

2. When the Evidence Can Be Used

The Court laid down clear guidelines for determining the admissibility of statements recorded under Section 299 CrPC:

• Proof of Absconding: The prosecution must establish that the accused was absconding and that there was no immediate prospect of their arrest.
• Diligence in Locating Witnesses: The prosecution must demonstrate that reasonable efforts were made to produce the witnesses during the trial after the accused was apprehended.
• Non-Availability of Witnesses: The evidence is admissible only if the witness is dead, cannot be found, or cannot be brought before the court without unreasonable delay or expense.

In the instant case, the Court held that:

• Singh had absconded for a long time, and the trial court was justified in invoking Section 299 CrPC.
• The prosecution had done a fair job in trying to locate and produce the witnesses during Singh’s trial but could not do so.
• The conditions under Section 299 CrPC were satisfied, and the evidence was rightly admitted by the trial court.

3. Fair Trial Concerns

Addressing concerns about the accused’s right to a fair trial, the Court observed that:

• Evidence collected under Section 299 CrPC does not per se violate a fair trial.
• There is enough protection against abuse in this provision, as the prosecution has to substantiate why witnesses are not available and whether the statements were duly recorded by procedural laws.
• The accused has the opportunity to rebut the evidence brought forward in their defense during cross examination or otherwise.

IMPLICATIONS OF THE JUDGMENT

The judgment in Sukhpal Singh v. NCT of Delhi has very strong implications for criminal jurisprudence and trial procedures in India.

1. Preserving crucial evidence

The judgment brings out the significance of Section 299 CrPC in preserving essential evidence that may otherwise be lost due to the absence of the accused or the unavailability of witnesses. This is particularly relevant in cases involving absconding accused, where delays in trial proceedings can span years or even decades.

2. Balancing Rights and Practical Realities

The judgment achieves an apt balance between the rights of the accused and the practical difficulties for the prosecution. In this respect, the Court has upheld the admissibility of evidence recorded under Section 299 CrPC by ensuring that the procedural hurdle would not derail the process of justice, but in the same process, safeguarded the rights of the accused.

3. Direction to the Trial Courts

The detailed observations of the Supreme Court provide much-needed guidance to the trial courts on the application of Section 299 CrPC. The stress on procedural compliance and due diligence by the prosecution would set a very high standard for the admissibility of evidence, thus minimizing the scope for misuse.

4. Impact on Witness Testimony

The ruling draws attention to the importance of the testimony of a witness in a criminal trial and the need to protect and preserve such evidence. It also serves as a reminder of the challenge posed by the unavailability of witnesses and the importance of recording and preserving statements in time.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court’s decision in Sukhpal Singh v. NCT of Delhi is a landmark judgment that clarifies the scope and application of Section 299 CrPC. By addressing the admissibility of evidence recorded in the absence of the accused, the Court has reinforced the principles of justice and procedural fairness while accommodating the practical realities of criminal trials. The judgment serves as a crucial reference point for future cases involving absconding accused and the use of evidence recorded under Section 299 CrPC, contributing significantly to the development of Indian criminal jurisprudence.