We will also examine the effect of such statements assuming that the same were really made. These statements were allegedly made immediately after the incident. The statements do have a connection with the incident. The statements were allegedly made spontaneously. Therefore, the Courts have treated the statements as relevant by invoking the doctrine of res gestae incorporated in Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act. We have held that the theory of the prosecution that the Appellant fired intentionally has not been established. The Appellant was instructed by PW-12 to go to the deceased and to prevent him from continuing the use of the telephone. Therefore, he went near the deceased. It is the reaction or the action of the deceased which resulted in the SAF getting entangled with the chain attached to the Appellant's belt; which led to the accidental fire from SAF. Therefore, the Accused spontaneously reacted by telling PW- 12 what she has got done from him. While implementing the direction issued by PW-12, the accidental fire took place and that is how the Appellant became responsible for the death. It is in this context that the reaction of the Appellant has to be understood. By those words, he has blamed the PW-12. The statement attributed to PW-12 means that she would support the Appellant before the Court by telling the truth. If the theory of accidental firing is accepted, the interpretation of the aforesaid statements as made by us becomes a possible interpretation which is consistent with normal human conduct.
{Para 17}
18. Section 6 of the Evidence Act and illustration (a) below Section 6 read thus:
6. Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction.--Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places.
Illustrations
(a) A is Accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by A or B or the by-standers at the beating, or so shortly before or after it as to form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact.
PW-5 and PW-13 have attributed the aforesaid statements mentioned in paragraph 16 above to the Appellant and PW-12 Shashi Bala which were immediately made after the incident of firing. The alleged statements are certainly connected with the fact in issue, namely, the alleged act of the Appellant of killing the deceased. Therefore, assuming that the statements attributed to the Appellant and PW-12 were in fact made, the conduct of the Appellant of making the said statement becomes relevant in view of Section 6. Section 5 of the Evidence Act provides that evidence may be given in a proceeding of the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue and of such other facts which are declared to be relevant under the provisions of Chapter II of the Evidence Act, 1872. Section 6 is applicable to facts which are not in issue. Such facts become relevant only when the same satisfy the tests laid down in Section 6. Hence, the statement of an Accused to which Section 6 is applicable cannot be treated as a confession of guilt. The statement becomes relevant which can be read in evidence as it shows the conduct of the Appellant immediately after the incident. In any case, in the facts of the case, we have held that the version of the two witnesses who have deposed about the Appellant making such statement does not inspire confidence.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Criminal Appeal No. 2390 of 2010
Decided On: 17.07.2023
Arvind Kumar Vs. State of NCT, Delhi
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.
Author: Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, J.
Citation: MANU/SC/0772/2023.
Print Page