Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment which lays down that the statement made during inquest proceeding cannot be used as substantive evidence owing to Section 162 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). 
• The Judgment was delivered by a 2- judge consisting of Justice MK Mukherjee and Justice S Saghir Ahmad. 

Facts  

• The case involves multiple accused persons, including Harkirat Singh (appellant) and four others, who were tried by the Sessions Judge, Kapurthala for various offenses under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), including: 
  • Section 148 (Rioting with deadly weapons) 
  • Section 449/149 (House-trespass with common intention) 
  • Section 302/149 (Murder with common intention) 
  • Section 307/149 (Attempted murder with common intention)   
• There was an ongoing civil litigation between Walaiti Ram and accused Narinder Singh (who was later acquitted) regarding a plot of land in Bholath. Walaiti Ram had obtained possession of the disputed land through a civil court judgment prior to the incident. 
• On 28th November, 1996, around 10 AM, Walaiti Ram was at the disputed land with his brother Kharaiti Ram and two others (Kharaiti Lal - PW4 and Ajit Singh - PW5), filling the foundation of the land. 
• At this time, five accused persons, including Harkirat Singh, allegedly arrived at the scene armed with deadly weapons. According to the prosecution, Harkirat Singh was carrying a pistol. 
• The prosecution claimed that Narinder Singh threatened to teach them a lesson for filling the foundation, after which Harkirat Singh allegedly fired shots that hit Kharaiti Ram (Walaiti Ram's brother) and Gurmit Singh (PW3), who was passing by on the road. 
• In the ensuing confrontation, some members of the complainant's party also assaulted the accused persons in self-defense, resulting in injuries to the accused as well. 
• Kharaiti Ram was taken to the Civil Hospital where he succumbed to his injuries.  
• The prosecution's case primarily relied on the testimony of three eye-witnesses: 
  • Gurmit Singh (PW3) - who turned hostile during the trial 
  • Kharaiti Lal (PW4) 
  • Ajit Singh (PW5)  
• The original complainant, Walaiti Ram, who had filed the First Information Report (FIR), could not testify as he had passed away before the trial. 
• The Trial Court in this case convicted Harkirat Singh under Section 302 and Section 307 of IPC and acquitted the other four accused persons. 
• The High Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal and upheld the conviction of trial Court. 
• Hence, the matter was before the Supreme Court. 

Issue Involved  

• Whether the High Court was correct in upholding the conviction of the appellant? 

Observation 

• The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in treating the statement made by Kharaiti Ram during inquest proceedings as substantive evidence in view of embargo under Section 162 of CrPC. 
• Further, the Court observed that High Court’s reliance upon contents of FIR lodged by Walaiti Ram who could not be examined during the trial as he had died in the meantime. 
• The contents of the F.I.R. could have been used for the purpose of corroborating or contradicting Walaiti Ram if he had been examined but under no circumstances as a substantive piece of evidence 
• The Court held that in the present facts the only evidence that is left is of two eye witnesses and they cannot be safely relied upon. 
• Hence, the Court set aside the conviction and the sentence recorded against the appellant. 
• The appellant was hence discharged from his bail bonds. 

Conclusion 

• This is a landmark judgment dealing with the evidentiary value of FIR and inquest report. 
• The Court clarified in this case that the High Court was not justified in treating the statement made by Kharaiti Ram during inquest proceedings as substantive evidence in view of embargo under Section 162 of CrPC.