Case Note & Summary
The case involved an appeal against an order of the Designated Court under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA) concerning the recording of evidence in the absence of the appellant. The appellant was accused of involvement in a murder case dating back to 1989, where the victim was shot dead at a railway station. The appellant had been declared a proclaimed offender and was arrested in connection with other cases before being formally arrested in this case in 1997. The Designated Court allowed the prosecution to record evidence from witnesses who had since died, citing Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant contended that the court did not satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of proving that he was absconding and that there was no immediate prospect of arrest. The State argued that the provisions of TADA had an overriding effect and that the absence of a formal finding was merely an irregularity. The Supreme Court analyzed the requirements of Section 299, emphasizing that both conditions must be met for the evidence to be admissible. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove that the appellant was absconding at the time of the order and that the Designated Court did not adequately consider the evidence available. Consequently, the court held that the order allowing the recording of evidence in the absence of the appellant was unsustainable, leading to the quashing of the impugned order.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Evidence in Absence of Accused - Jurisdictional Requirements - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 299 - The court must establish that the accused has absconded and that there is no immediate prospect of arrest before recording evidence in absence. The Designated Court failed to apply its mind to the jurisdictional facts, leading to an arbitrary order. Held that the order under Section 299 was unsustainable (Paras 1-21). B) Evidence Law - Admissibility of Witness Statements - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 33 - Evidence of deceased witnesses can only be admitted if the conditions of Section 299 are satisfied. The court must ensure that the foundational facts are proven before allowing such evidence. Held that the prosecution did not meet the legal requirements (Paras 12-28).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Designated Court correctly invoked Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to record evidence in the absence of the appellant.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court quashed the order of the Designated Court allowing the recording of evidence in the absence of the appellant, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the jurisdictional facts required under Section 299 of the Code. The court emphasized the necessity of strict compliance with the legal requirements for admissibility of evidence.
Law Points
- Interpretation of Section 299 CPC
- Section 33 Indian Evidence Act
- Section 14(5) TADA
- Right to confront witnesses
- Jurisdictional facts for absconding
- Admissibility of evidence
- Proclamation under Section 82 CPC
