Accused's Section 313 Statement Must Be Read With Prosecution Evidence: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Jeep-Hit Murder Conviction

An Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Nagaur, convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 15,000 (para 1). The prosecution case was that the deceased and five friends hired the appellant's jeep for a wedding; on the way back his rash driving led to an altercation, the group got down and walked on, and he drove back and hit the deceased, who died on the spot (paras 2, 18-20). In his Section 313 statement the appellant said the passengers were drunk, he had put them off and the friends might have killed the deceased (para 26). A defence doctor (DW-1) linked a hyoid fracture to strangulation (para 7).

Examination under Section 313 CrPC gives the accused an opportunity to explain the case against him; if his statement is false, the court may draw an adverse inference (para 27). The statement is not strictly evidence: it may test the exculpatory nature of any admission, and a court may rely on it only in conjunction with the prosecution evidence, never in isolation (para 28). The five eye-witnesses corroborated one another and their Section 161 statements and were not shaken in cross-examination (paras 29-31). Being friends of the deceased, they were scrutinised with care and inspired confidence (para 33). The quarrel over the driving supplied motive and the hit was premeditated (paras 34-36). DW-1's opinion carried no weight: the autopsy doctor was not cross-examined on it and DW-1 relied only on documents (paras 37-38). The FIR, registered at 4:15 p.m. on the report given at the spot at 4:00 p.m., was not preceded by substantial investigation (para 41). The drunkenness explanation failed, since drunk passengers would have been put off at the start, and the appellant could not explain the damage to his jeep, so a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act arose (paras 42-43).