Holding

Statements recorded under Section 299 CrPC are admissible as substantive evidence when the death of the deponent is established, and the failure to record a formal order is merely a curable irregularity.

Summary

The appellant, an army personnel, was convicted of murdering four persons and attempting to murder twelve others under IPC sections 302 and 307 and Arms Act sections 25 and 27. Prior to his arrest, a magistrate recorded statements of 27 witnesses under Section 299 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC). By the time of trial, 22 of those witnesses turned hostile and five were reported dead; their statements were tendered as evidence. The appellant challenged the admissibility of those statements, arguing that the prosecution had not proved the death of the witnesses and that the trial court had failed to record a formal order satisfying the pre‑conditions of Section 299. The State contended that the process server’s report and the High Court’s finding established the deaths, and that any omission by the trial court was a curable irregularity. The Supreme Court held that the pre‑conditions of Section 299 were satisfied, the death of the witnesses was duly established, and the failure to record an order was not fatal. Consequently, the convictions and sentences were upheld.

Issues considered

The admissibility of statements recorded under Section 299 CrPC when the deponent is dead.
Whether the prosecution complied with the pre‑conditions of Section 299, particularly proof of death, in the absence of a formal order by the trial court.
Whether the omission of a recorded order constitutes a fatal procedural defect.

Legislation cited

Arms Act, 1959s. 25, s. 27
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 299(1), s. 366, s. 465, s. 82
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 33
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 307

Subjects

Section 299 CrPCdeposition in absence of accusedadmissibility of hearsaydeath of witnesscriminal evidencecurable irregularitymurder conviction

Judgment

NIRMAL SINGH A
v.
STATE OF HARYANA

•, MARCH 30, 2000

[G.B. PATTANAIK AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] B

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 299(1)-lndian Evidence Act,
1872-Section 33-Deposition of witnesses in absence of accused-Admissi-
bility of-The procedure under Section 299 being exception to the principle
embodied in Section 33, it is necessary that the pre-conditions for utilising c
such statements in evidence during trial must be strictly complied with and be
established and proved like any other fact-Statement of witness uls. 299
tendered in evidence when death of the witnesses established-Whether the
statements could be treated as evidence-Held, Yes.

Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302 & 307-Arms Act, 1959-Sec- D
tions 25 & 27-Convictions under-Relying on statements recorded under
Section 299 Cr.P.C.-Held, under the circumstances ofthe case, no inteiference
required.

The appellant serving in the army, along with two others, was charged
for murder of four persons with a service rifle. He was declared pro- E
claimed offender under section 82 Cr.P.C. Thereafter Sub-Divisional Judi-
cial Magistrate recorded statement of 27 witnesses under section 299 Cr.P.C.

The appellant was arrested later, and was com,mitted to Sessions
Court. During trial, 22 out of the 27 witnesses whose statements were
F
<
... recorded under section 299 Cr.P.C., turned hostile and when summons
were issued to the other 5 witnesses, it returned with the report that the
persons have died. The process server also submitted his report that they
have died. Thereafter their statements recorded under Section 299 Cr.P.C.
were tendered in evidence and exhibited. The Magistrate who had re-
corded the statement was also examined to the effect that he had recorded G
the statements. The Trial Court did not record an order to the effect as to

--
how the pre-conditions of the second part of Section 299 Cr.P.C. have been
complied with; and relying on the statements of the five deceased wit-
nesses, the trial court convicted the appellant under sections 307 & 302
IPC and under section 25 & 27 Arms Act and sentenced him to death.
H
807
808 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A In appeal by the appellant and in Reference under Section 366
Cr.P.C., High Court recorded a finding that the factum of death of five
witnesses has been established for the purpose of Section 299 Cr.P.C. The
conviction was confirmed, but the death sentence was commuted to life
imprisonment.
B In appeal to this Court, it was contended by the appellant that' the
pre-conditions of Section 299 Cr.P.C. have not been complied with, as it
has not been established by the prosecution that the persons are dead. The
respondent/State contended that the statements recorded under Section
-
299 were tendered in evidence only when the five witnesses were reported
C dead by the process server; that though the Trial Judge has not passed
any order to that effect, the non-passing of such order would at the most
be an irregularity which is curable under section 465 Cr.P.C., more so,
when the accused had not raised any objection at any earlier stage of the
--
proceeding; and that the argument of the appellant cannot be sustained
because it is not his contention that those persons are not dead.
D
Dismissing the appeal , this Court
HELD: 1. The argument that pre-condition of section 299 Cr.P.C.
have not been complied with, cannot he sustained. The statements under
section 299 could be treated as evidence, since the High Court did record
E a conclusion on examining the records of the proceedings· that the wit-
nesses are dead. The accused never raised the contention even in this
Court that the persons are not dead but raised the sole contention that it
has not been established by the prosecution that the persons are not dead.
--
[817-D-E]

F 2. Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure consists of two
...t
parts. The first part speaks of the circumstances under which witnesses
produced by the prosecution could be examined in the absence of the
accused and the second part speaks of the circumstances, when such depo-
sition can be given in evidence against the accused in any inqtifry or trial
for the offence with which he is charged. This procedure contemplated
G
under Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is thus an exception
to the principle embodied in Section 33 of the Evidence Act inasmuch as
under Section 33 the evidence of a \vitness, which a party has no right or . "
opportunity to cross-examine is not legally admissible. Being·an exception,
it is necessary, therefore that all the conditions prescribed, must he strictly
H complied with. In other words, before recording the statement of the
NIRMAL SlNGH v. STATE 809
,.
witnesses, produced by the prosecution the Court must be satisfied that A
accused has absconded or that there is no immediate prospect of arresting
him, as provided under first part of Section 299(1) of the Code of Crimi-
nal Procedure. In the case in hand, there is no grievance about non-
compliance of any of the requirements of the first part of sub-section (1)
of the Section 299 Cr.P.C. When the accused is arrested and put up for
B
trial, if any, such deposition of any witness is intended to be used as an
evidence against the accused in any trial, then the Court must be satisfied
that either the deponent is dead or his presence cannot be procured with-
out an amount of delay, expense or inconvenience, which would be unrea-
sonable. [814-B-E]
c
3. Since the law empowers the Court to utilise such statement of
persons whose statements were recorded in the absence as an exception to
the normal principles embodied in Section 33 of the Evidence Act, inas-
much as the accused has been denied of the opportunity of cross-examin-
ing the witnesses, it is, therefore necessary that the pre-conditions for
utilising such statements in evidence during trial must be established and D
proved like any other fact. There possibly cannot be any dispute with the
proposition of law that for taking the benefits of Section 299 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, the conditions precedent therein must be duly
established and the prosecution, which proposes to utilise the said state-
ment as evidence in trial, must, therefore, prove about the existence of the E
pre-conditions before tendering the evidence. [815-B-C]

Chainchal Singh v. Emperor, Affi. 33 (1946) PC Page 1, distinguished.

4. On perusal of Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as
well as Section 33 of the Evidence Act, it is evident that the pre-conditions F
in both the Sections must be established by the prosecution and it is only
then, the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 299 Cr.P.C. be-
fore the arrest of the accused can be utilised in evidence in trial after the
arrest of such accused only if the persons are dead or would not be
available or any other condition enumerated in the second part of section
G
299(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is established. [815-F-G]

5. It is true that the Sessions judge has not recorded an order to that
effect and it would have certainly been in compliance of the requirement
of Section 299 that the Court, while such statements are tendered in
evidence should have recorded as to how the pre-conditions of the second H
810 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) 2 S.C.R.
A part of Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been com-
plied with. But when the Appellate Court examines the records of the
proceedings and comes to a conclusion that in fact those persons have died
long before the summons on them to appear as witness, could be issued,
.the evidence thus tendered cannot to ignored from consideration, particu-
larly, in a case like the one where all other eye witnesses, 22 in number did
B
not support the prosecution on being examined and there has been a
gruesome murder inasmuch as the appellant killed four persons by indis-
criminately shooting at them from his service rifle. [816-F-G]

Jose v. The State of Kerala, AIR (1973) SC 944, relied on.
c CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos.
118-119 of 1998.

From the Judgment and Order dated 11.7.97 of the Punjab & Haiyana
High Court in Cd.A. No. 261-DB of 1996 and Murder Reference No. 3 of
D 1996.

Gopal Subramanium, Atul Sreedharan, K.C. Sudharshan and R.N.
Keshwani for the Appellant.

Mahabir Singh, S.R. Sharma and Gautam Awasthi for the Respondent.
E The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

PATTANAIK, J. The appellant was convicted by the learned Sessions
Judge for the offence of murder under Section 302 IPC, on a finding that he
shot at Surat Singh, Desh Raj, Lehna Singh and Ramesh, by means of his sten
gun, on account of which, all these four people died. He was also found guilty
F
under Section 307 IPC for having injured 12 other persons with the intention
of killing them. For his conviction under Section 302 IPC, the learned
Sessions Judge, awarded the extreme penalty of death. The conviction and
sentence was assailed by the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 261- DB of
1997 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and a Reference also had been
G made by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 366 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure for confirmation, which was registered as Murder.Refer-
ence No. 3 of 1996. Both these cases were heard together and the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana by the impugned Judgment dated 11.7:1997, upheld
the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 as well as under Section 307
H IPC but so far as sentence is concerned, the ~igh Court commuted the death
NIRMAL SINGH v. STATE [PATTANAIK, J.) 811
sentence to imprisonment for life. Be it be stated, the appellant had alro been A
convicted under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and that conviction had
also been upheld by the High Court in appeal. On the basis of the First
Information Report Exhibit PW44/A, a criminal case was registered under
Section 302/34 in the Police Station Safidon, District Jind on 15th of
September, 1980 at 8.20 p.m. The First Informant was one Chhotu, son of
B
lndraj. According to the FIR version, while the informant along with two
others were present at the flour mill of Gaje Singh in village Budha Khera,
the appellant who was serving in Anny, and his brother, one Vijay Singh with
two other persons came before them and indiscriminately fired with the army
weapon which hit Surat Singh and 'said Surat Singh fell down. In course of
such firing, Desh Raj also was shot al and he died. The informant then rushed c
to the Police Station and lodged the report. It was also indicated that earlier,
there was a fight between two groups of people, on account of which the
accused persons had grudge and they took revenge of the same. On the basis
of the aforesaid FIR, PW44 along with his police staff reached the place of
occurrence and found four people dead. The dead bodies of the aforesaid four
D
,. people were sent to hospital for post mortem examination and autopsy was
conducted by Doctors PW3 I, PW32, PW33 and PW34. The investigating
I Officer got a warrant of arrest against the appellant on 16th of September,.
1980 and went to the Unit of accused and he was informed by the Officers
that the appellant has not rejoined after availing leave from 15th of Septem-
ber, 1980. The Investigating Officer also requested to have the custody of the E
· sten gun which had been issued to the appellant but the Anny Officers,
refused to hand-0ver the sten gun. However those Anny Officers handed over
the live cartridges which had been supplied to the accused along with the sten
gun for the pwpose of analyses and comparison with the leads removed from
the dead bodies of the four deceased persons. But, FSL authorities intimated F
the Investigating Officer that no testing could be done as the firing had been
done in sand and without the weapon concerned, it would '!Ol be possible to •
test and analysei The Investigating Officer then again approached the Anny
Authorities and got eight sten guns. All those eight sten guns were tested by
a test fire and the FSL people identified one of those sten guns which
according to them had been used in firing at the decease~. Later on, the Anny G
Authorities established that the said gun in fact had been issued to the accused
appellant After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the
appellant, his brother Vijay Singh and their father Rulia Ram but Rulia Ram
had died by then. So far as the appellant is concerned, as he could not be
found, he was declared proclaimed offender and his brother Vijay Singh was H
812 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A also declared as a proclaimed offender. Since one of the accused persons had
already died and two others were declared as proclaimed offenders, the Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, recorded the statement of 27 witnesses under
Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The present appellant was
later on arrested on 11th of September, 1994 and then on being committed by
the learned Magistrate to the Court of Sessions, the Sessions Judge tried him
B
for the offences charged. Out of the 27 witnesses who had been examined
under Section 299 of the Cr.P.C., five of them had died by the time charges
were framed against the appellant. Their statements recorded under Section
299 Cr.P.C. were, therefore, exhibited during the trial as PW48/A, PW48/B,
PW48/C, PW48/D and PW48/E. 22 other witnesses who had also been
c examined under Section 299 Cr.P.C. were examined as prosecution witnesses
during trial but they did not support the prosecution and, therefore, they were
cross examined by the Public Prosecutor and were declared hostile. The
appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 pleaded innocence and
denied of his complicity with the crime. On the basis of the medical evidence
of the doctors who had conducted the autopsy over the dead bodies, the
D
learned Sessions Judge came to hold that the four persons died on account of
gunj shot injuries and injuries were ante mortem in nature. So far as, the
appellant being the author of the crime, the Sessions Judge relied upon the
statement of the five deceased eye witnesses, which had been recorded under
Section 299 Cr.P.C. and came to the conclusion that those evidence prove
E beyond reasonable doubt that on the date of occurrence, it is the appellant
who fired at the deceased persons by means of his sten gun and in conse-
quence of which the four persons died at the spot. The Sessions Judge also
came to the conclusion on the self-said statement recorded under Sectioll 299
Cr.P.C. and came to hold that the appellant also caused injuries by means of
F firing and as such committed the offence under Section 307 !PC. Ultimately,
the Sessions Judge convicted the appellant nnder Section 302 and under
Section 307 !PC as well as under Sections 25 and 27 of the Anns Act. On •
appeal, the High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant, relying upon
the self-same materials namely the statement recorded under S~ction 299
Cr.P.C. of those five persons but as has been stated earlier for the conviction
G under Section 302, instead of awarding sentence of death, the High ·court
commuted the same to the life imprisonmenLThese appeals have been
presented in this court on getting special leave.

Since the conviction is essentially based on the statements of five
H witnesses recorded under Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Mr.
NIRMAL SINGH v. STATE [PATTANAIK. J.] - 813
t Gopal Subramanium, the learned senior counsel. appearing for the appellant A
contended before us that Section 299 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
empowers a Magistrate to take the deposition of witnesses in the absence of
the accused being_ an exception to the principle embodied in Section 33 of the
Evidence Act. before such statement can be used as evidence in any trial. the
prosecution must strictly comply with the pre-conditions for applicability of
B
Sec. 299. According to the learned counsel. the deposition recorded by the
Magistrate under Section 299 can be given in evidence against an accused in
any trial for the offence with which he is charged, if the deponent is dead or
incapable of giving evidence or cannot be found or his presence cannot be
procured without an amount of delay, expense or inconvenience. But in the
case in hand. there is no material to establish that the deponent namely those c
five persons whose statement had been recorded under Section 299 of the
Cr.P.c: are dead and. therefore, their deposition recorded under Section 299
of the Cr.P.C. cannot be utilised as evidence in trial and the conviction of the
appellant. therefore. is vitiated.
D
, Mr. Mahabir Singh. the learned counsel. appearing for the State-
·lrespondnet. on the other hand contended that the five persons having been
reported to be dead. their statements recorded under Section 299 Cr.P.C. were
tendered in evidence, which had been exhibited as Exhibits PW48/A to
PW48/E. At no point of time, the accused has made any grievance that these E
persons are not dead. It is too late for the appellant to contend in this Court
that there is no material to establish that the persons whose statements were
recorded under Section 299 Cr.P.C. and those statements were tendered in
evidence during trial, are not dead. According to Mr. Mahabir Singh, the
appellant in this Court also does not contend that the persons concerned are
not dead. But what is contended is that the prosecution has not established F
the fact that the people are not dead. The Magistrate who has recorded the
statement under Section 299 of the Criminal Procedure Code, has been
examined to indicate that in fact he has recorded the statements. He also
further contended. that the process server did submit the report that the
persons are dead, whereafter the statements recorded under Section 299 G
Cr.P.C. were tendered in evidence in course of trial. It is true that the learned
Sessions Judge has not passed any order to that effect but non-passing of
such order would at the most be an irregularity which is curable under
Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. more so. when the accused
had_not raised any objection at any earlier stage of the proceeding. H
814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A- In view of the rival stand of the parties, the sole question that arises for
consideration is under what circumstances and by what method, the state-
•
ments of five persons could have been tendered in the case for -being
admissible under Section 33 of the Evidence Act and whether it can form the
basis of conviction. Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure consists
of two parts. The first part_ speaks of the circumstances under which witnesses
B
produced by the prosecution could be examined in the absence of the accused
and the second part speaks of the circnmstances, when such deposition can be
given in evidence against the accused in any inquiry or trial for the offence
with which he is charged. 1bis procedure contemplated under Section 299 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure is thus an exception to the principle embod-
c ied in Section 33 of the_ Evidence Act inasmuch as under Section 33, the
evidence of a witness, which a party has no right or opportunity to cross-
exarniue is not legally admissible. Being an exception,_ it is necessary,
therefore, that 311 the conditions prescribed, must be strictly complied with. In
other words, before recording the statement of the witnesses, produced by the
D prosecutio:i, the Court must be satisfied that the accused has absconded or that
there is no immediate prospect of arresting him, as provided under first part
of Section 299(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the case in hand,
! there is no grievance about non-compliance of any of the requirements of the
first part of sub-section (1) of Section 299 Cr.P.C. When the accused is: ·
arrested and put up for trial, if any, such deposition of any witness is intended
E to be used as an evidence against the accused in any trial, then the Court must
be satisfied that either the deponent is dead or incapable of giving evidence
or cannot be found or his presence cannot be procured without an amount of
delay, expense or inconvenience, which would be unreasonable. The entire
argnments of Mr. Gopal Subrarnanium. appearing for the appellant is that any
p one of these circumstances, which permits the prosecution to use the state-
ments of such witnesses recorded under Section 299(1) must be proved and
1
the Court concerned must be satisfied and record a conclusion thereon. In
other words, like any other fact, it must first be proved by the prosecution that
either the deponent is dead or is incapable of giving evidence or cannot be
found or his presence cannot be procured without an amonnt of delay,
G : expense or inconvenience which, under the circwnstances would be unreason-
able. In the case in hand, there is no order of the learned trial Judge, recording
a conclusion _that on the materials, he was satisfied that the persons who are
examined by the Magistrate under Sec.299(1) are dead, though according to
the prosecution case, it is only after summons being issued and the process
H sei:ver having reported those persons to be dead, their former statements were
NIRMAL SINGH v. STATE [PATIANAIK, J.] 815
tendered as evidence in trial and were marked as Exhibits PW48/A to PW48/ A
E. As has been stated earlier, since the law empowers the Court to utilise such
statements of persons whose statements were recorded in the absence of the
accused as an exception to the normal principles embodied in Section 33 of
the Evidence Act, inasmuch as the accused has been denied of the opportunity
of cross-examining the witnesses, it is, therefore, necessary that the pre-
B
conditions for utilising such statements in evidence during trial must be
established and proved like any other fact. There possibly cannot be any
dispute with the proposition of law that for taking the benefits of Section 299
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the conditions precedent therein must be
duly established and the prosecution, which proposes to utilise the said
statement as evidence in trial, must, therefore, prove about the existence of the c
pre-conditions before tendering the evidence. The Privy Council, in fact in the
case of Chainchal Singh v. Emperor, AIR 33 (1946) PC, Page 1, in analysing
the applicability of Section 33 of the Evidence Act, did come to the
conclusion that when the evidence given by the prosecution witness before
the Committing Magistrate is sought to be admitted before the Sessions Court
D
under Section 33 on the ground that the witness was incapable of giving
evidence, then that fact must be strictly proved and this may be more so in
those cases where the witness was not cross-examined in the Committing
Magistrate's Court by reason of the accused not having been represented by
a counsel. In that particular case the process server had been examined, who
stated that he found the witness ill and unable to move from his house, but E
that was not treated to be sufficient to hold that the prosecution has discharged
its burden of proving that the witness is not available. But having said so,
Their Lordships did not interfere with the conviction on the ground that the
Court can interfere only if, it is satisfied that grave and substantial injustice
has been caused by mis-reception of the evidence in the case. On a mere F
perusal of Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as Section
33 of the Evidence Act, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that

-
the pre-conditions in both the SectiO!J.S must be established by the prosecution
and it is only then, the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 299
Cr.P.C. before the arrest of the accused can be utilised in evidence in trial after
the arrest of such accused only if the persons are dead or would not be G
available or any other condition enumerated in the second part of Section
299(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is established. In the case in hand,
after the process server reported the fact of death of the concerned persons,
who were summoned as witnesses and whose statements had already been
recorded under Section 299 Cr.P.C. on the application of the prosecution, the H
816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] 2 S.C.R.
A said statements were tendered as evidence and have been exhibited as
Exhibits PW48/A to PW48/E. The learned Sessions Judge as well as the High
Court relied upon the said statements for basing the conviction of the
appellant. So far as the compliance of the first part of Section 299 (1) is
concerned, the same is established through the evidence of PW28, who at the
relevant time was working in Almy as well as the S.H.O., Safidon also
B
submitted before the Magistrate that the arrest of the accused could not be
procured, as he was absconding and in fact there was an order from the
Magistrate for issuance of proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. The High Court in fact, on consideration of the entire
materials did record a finding that the requirements of first part of Section 299
c of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be held to have been established and
there was no illegality in recording the statements of the five persons as the
accused had been absconding and there was no immediate prospect of the
arrest of the said accused. So far as the requirements of second part of Section
299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is concerned, the impugned Judgment
D of the High Court indicates that the Court looked into the original records and
it was found that the summons had been sent by the learned trial Judge,
summoning the witnesses repeatedly to appear before the trial Court and on
every occasion, the summons were received back with the rep01t that the
persons have already died. The High Court has also indicated as to how on
each occasion, summons issued to the five witnesses have been returned back
E with the report that the persons are dead.

It is true as already stated that the Sessions Judge has not recorded an
order to that effect and it would have certainly been in compliance of the
requirement of Section 299 that the Court, while such statements are tendered
in evidence should have recorded as to how the pre-conditions of the second
F part of Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been complied
with. But when the Appellate Court examines the records of the proceedings
and comes to a conclusion that in fact those_Persons have died long before the

G
summons on them to appear as witness, could be issued, the evidence thus
tendered cannot be ignored from consideration, particularly, in a case like the
one where all other eye witnesses, 22 in number did not support the
-
prosecution on being examined and there has been a gruesome murder
inasmuch as the appellant killed four persons by indiscriminately shooting at
them from his rifle, which was given to him in the Cantonment. The High
Court has recorded a finding that the factum of death of five witnesses,
namely PW2 Chhotu, PW12 Jai Lal, PW15 Prem, PWlO Zahri Singh and
H
NIRMAL SINGH v. STATE [PATTANAIK, J.] 817
PWll Jage Ram, has been established for the purpose of Section 299 of the A
Code of Criminal Procedure. In fact in the case of Jose v. The State of Kerala,
AIR (1973) SC 944, this Court had an occasion to examine the question of
treating the evidence of a witness in the committal Court as substantive
evidence in trial under Section 33 of the Evidence Act, this Court had
recorded the fact that at the time of trial, the witness had left for Coorg and
B
was not available and it was not possible to serve summons on him and even
a non-bailable warrant issued by the Court was returned with the endorsement
'not available' and it is under those circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge
brought on record the statement made by the eye witness before the committal
Court as substantive evidence and marked the same as P-25. This Court
negatived the contention of the accused and held that the said statement had c
rightly been treated as an evidence during trial. The circmnstances under
which the statement of the witness in the committal Court had been tendered
and treated as substantive evidence during trial is almost similar to the case
in hand and rather in the case in hand, the accused never raises the contention
even in this Court that the persons are not dead but raises the sole contention
D
that it has not been established by the prosecution that the persons are not
dead. As has been stated earlier, the High Court did record a conclusion on
examining the records of the proceedings that the witnesses are dead and,
therefore, their former statements under Section 299 could be treated as
evidence. We see, no infirmity with the said conclusion of the High Court and
we are, therefore, not in a position to sustain the argument of Mr. Gopal E
Subramaniwn, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellant that pre-
conditions of Section 299 Cr.P.C. have not been complied with. Once the
statements of those witnesses, exhibited as Exhibits PW48/A to PW48/E, are
considered, and the Sessions Judge as well the High Court have relied upon
the same and based the conviction, we see, no infirmity in the same, requiring p
our interference with the conviction and sentence recorded by the High Comt ..
In the aforesaid circumstances, it must be held that the prosecution case has
been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

These appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed.
G
K.K.T. Appeals dismissed.