The delayed recording of the statement of a prosecution witness under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 reduces its value to nothing unless there is a plausible............

It is trite that the delayed recording of the statement of a prosecution witness under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 reduces its value to nothing unless there is a plausible explanation for such delay. No explanation, much less probable, has been given by the prosecution witnesses for the prosecution witness not getting his statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 recorded immediately and therefore no value can be attached to his statement.

It is opposed to human conduct that an assailant would keep waiting for the arrival of the witnesses prior to the commission of the offence. It is all the more illogical that being perceptive of the fact that by pending the matter the accused ran the risk of the arrival of the witnesses and their deposing against the accused, even then the assailant kept waiting for their arrival. Such behaviour, on the part of the accused, as deposed by the prosecution witnesses runs counter to natural human conduct and behaviour.

In Chapter 20 ‘Deaths from Asphyxia ”, from page 515 to page 517 of Rai Bahadur Jaising P. Modi's A Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (26th Edition 2018) Strangulation has been defined as the compression of the neck by a force other than hanging and when constriction is produced by the pressure of the fingers and palms upon the throat, it is called as throttling. It has been further noted that if fingers are used for throttling, marks of pressure by the thumb and the finger prints are found on the either side of the neck. In Chapter 20 ‘Deaths from Asphyxia”, at page 515 of Rai Bahadur Jaising P. Modi's A Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (26th Edition 2018), the types of strangulation have been mentioned as under:- “

Types of Strangulation .

Ligature strangulation .

Throttling (manual strangulation-compressing with hand) •

Mugging (compressing with forearm or foot or wrist) •

Bansdola (wooden stick is used to compress the neck) •

Garrotting (a rope or a loincloth and a wooden stick as a lever to tighten the ligation is used) •

Accidental strangulation (can arise in the course of a person's occupation when a neck tie or scarf is caught in moving machinery or belts as in mill workers or in an epileptic or an intoxicated person who may be helpless in extricating himself from such tight encirclement of the neck or in utero when the movements of the foetus cause the umbilical cord to be wound round into neck.”

In the same Chapter 20 ‘Deaths from Asphyxia ”, from page 516 to page 517 of Rai Bahadur Jaising P. Modi's A Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (26th Edition 2018) it has been discoursed as under:-

“(2) If fingers are used (throttling), marks of pressure by the thumb and the fingertips are usually found on either side of the windpipe. The thumb mark is ordinarily higher and wider on one side of the front of the neck, and the finger marks are situated on its other side obliquely downwards and outwards, and one below the other. However, the marks are sometimes found clustered together, so that they cannot be distinguished separately. These fingertip bruises, each disc-shaped and 1-2 cm in diameter, look like red bruises (six penny bruises) if examined soon after death, but they look brown, dry and parchment-like sometimes death. One should refrain from drawing inference from the direction of curved abrasion, as to how the hand of the assailant might have been applied to the neck of victim. The inherent quality of the victim's skin, the shape, and length of the fingernails of the assailant render such inferences extremely tenuous. This linear or crescentic marks produced by the fingernails are occasionally present, if the fingertips are pressed deeply into the soft tissues of the neck. A body, which is wet, may not reveal fingernail marks until drying of the skin of the body. When both hands are used to grasp and compress the throat, the thumb mark of one hand and the finger marks of the other hand are usually found on either side of the throat. Sometimes, both thumb marks are found on one side and several finger marks on the opposite side. If the throat is compressed between two hands, one being applied to the front and the other to the back, bruises and abrasions may be found on the front of the neck, as well as on its back.

Besides these marks, there may be abrasions and bruises on the mouth, nose, cheeks, forehead, lower jaw or any other part of the body, if there has been a struggle. Similarly, fractures of the ribs and injuries to the thoracic and abdominal organs may be present, if the assailant kneels on the chest or abdomen of his victim while pressing his throat”

On a conceptual plain, Article 117 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 enshrines the foundational principle of our criminal justice system, whereby the accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved otherwise. Accordingly, the burden is placed on the prosecution to prove beyond doubt the guilt of the accused, which burden can never be shifted to the accused unless the legislature by express terms commands otherwise. It is only when the prosecution is able to discharge the burden of proof by establishing the elements of the offence, which are sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused that the burden is shifted upon the accused, inter alia, under Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, to produce evidence of facts, which are especially in his exclusive knowledge, and practically impossible for the prosecution to prove, to avoid conviction.

It has to be kept in mind that Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 comes into play only when the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused by producing sufficient evidence, except the facts referred to in Article 122 Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, leading to the inescapable conclusion that the offence was committed by the accused. Then, the burden is on the accused not to prove her innocence, but only to produce evidence enough to create doubts in the prosecution’s case.

In a criminal case, the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difficult, for the prosecution to establish facts which are “especially” within the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience. If the article was to be interpreted otherwise, it would lead to the very startling conclusion that in a murder case the burden lies on the accused to prove that she did not commit the murder because who could know better than she whether she did or did not. Article 122 of the Qanun-eShahadat, 1984 cannot be used to undermine the well-established rule of law that, save in a very exceptional class of cases, the burden is on the prosecution and never shifts. Throughout the web of the Law, one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the accused’s guilt subject to any statutory exception. No matter what the charge, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused is the law and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained.