Noise of victim was heard by witnesses--Presence of witnesses was natural--Witness are reliable and corroborative--Involvement of accused in the incident proved--Voice as recorded matched with original voice of victim--Finger prints on recovered c..

Noise of victim was heard by witnesses--Presence of witnesses was natural--Witness are reliable and corroborative--Involvement of accused in the incident proved--Voice as recorded matched with original voice of victim--Finger prints on recovered car matched--Plea of alibi not proved--Circumstantial evidence inspire confidence--Consideration of--Held--conviction entirely based on proper appreciation of evidence on record--No need for any interference--Appeal dismissed. [Para--7] Criminal Law--Kidnapping-Status of witness--Held--Where presence of witness is natural then it can not be dubbed as chance witness. [Para--7]

The object of examination under this Section is to give the accused an opportunity to explain the case made against him. This statement can be taken into consideration in judging his innocence or guilt. Where there is an onus on the accused to dis..

The object of examination under this Section is to give the accused an opportunity to explain the case made against him. This statement can be taken into consideration in judging his innocence or guilt. Where there is an onus on the accused to discharge, it depends on the facts and circumstances of the case if such statement discharges the onus. The word `generally' in sub-section (1) (b) does not limit the nature of the questioning to one or more questions of a general nature relating to the case, but it means that the question should relate to the whole case generally and should also be limited to any particular part or parts of it. The question must be framed in such a way as to enable the accused to know what he is to explain, what are the circumstances which are against him and for which an explanation is needed. The whole object of the section is to afford the accused a fair and proper opportunity of explaining circumstances which appear against him and that the questions must be fair and must be couched in a form which an ignorant or illiterate person will be able to appreciate and understand. A conviction based on the accused's failure to explain what he was never asked to explain is bad in law. The whole object of enacting Section 313 Cr. P.C. was that the attention of the accused should be drawn to the specific points in the charge and in the evidence on which the prosecution claims that the case is made out against the accused so that he may be able to give such explanation as he desires to give. It is not sufficient compliance to string together a long series of facts and ask the accused what he has to say about them. He must be questioned separately about each material substance which is intended to be used against him. The questionings must be fair and couched in a form which an ignorant or illiterate person will be able to appreciate and understand. Even when an accused is not illiterate, his mind is apt to be perturbed when he is facing a serious charge. Fairness, therefore, requires that each material circumstance should be put simply and separately in a way that an illiterate mind, or one which is perturbed or confused, can readily appreciate and understand. [Paras 5-7] [658-F-H; 659-A-F] 2. It is true as contented for the appellant that no incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. There is no accusation specifically put in question during examination. It only refers to kidnapping.

In a matter of rape, though statement of prosecutrix must be given primary consideration, but at the same time the broad principle that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt applies equally to a case of rape and there can b..

In a matter of rape, though statement of prosecutrix must be given primary consideration, but at the same time the broad principle that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt applies equally to a case of rape and there can be no presumption that a prosecutrix would always tell the entire story truthfully - Prosecutrix in her earlier statement has not attributed the offences of rape and kidnapping to one of the appellants - Therefore, in the light of contradictions, some doubt is created with regard to his involvement - He is accordingly acquitted - As regards the other appellant, statements of the prosecutrix and other witnesses are categoric - Prosecutrix clearly stated that she had been kidnapped and raped by this accused and the absconding accused - His appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

Indian Penal Code, 1860

This was clearly conveyed to the victim PW-2. He was even conveyed the amount to be paid. There is no infirmity in the judgment of the courts below to warrant any interference. [447-D; 448-A] 2.1.