Section 299 CrPC statements remain admissible when statutory conditions are met and witness death is established on the record.

Section 299 CrPC operates as a limited exception to the general rule against admitting evidence from witnesses not available for cross-examination under Section 33 of the Evidence Act. Prior statements may be used only where the accused had absconded or arrest had no immediate prospect when they were recorded, and the Court is later satisfied that the witness is dead, incapable of giving evidence, cannot be found, or cannot be produced without unreasonable delay, expense or inconvenience. A missing formal order was treated as an irregularity, but the record showed repeated summons reporting the witnesses dead and the High Court's finding on that basis. The statements were therefore admissible and could be relied upon to sustain the conviction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the statements of witnesses recorded in the absence of the accused under Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be treated as admissible evidence and relied upon for conviction when the Court was satisfied that the witnesses were dead.

Analysis: Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is an exception to the general rule embodied in Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that evidence of a witness not subject to cross-examination is not ordinarily admissible. For such prior statements to be used in trial, the statutory conditions must be established: the accused must have absconded or there must have been no immediate prospect of arrest at the stage of recording, and when the statements are later tendered in evidence, the Court must be satisfied that the witness is dead, incapable of giving evidence, cannot be found, or cannot be produced without unreasonable delay, expense, or inconvenience. The absence of a separate formal order by the trial Court was treated as an irregularity, but the appellate record showed that repeated summons had returned with reports of death and that the High Court had recorded a finding on that basis. In those circumstances, the former statements were properly treated as evidence.

Conclusion: The statements recorded under Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were admissible and could validly be relied upon for sustaining the conviction.

---