Chapter XXIII
Section 298 CrPC: Previous conviction of acquittal how proved
New Law Update (2024)
Section 345 BNSS
TRIAL COURT
Punishment
Procedural – Warrant / Summons Process
Cognizable?
Bailable?
Compoundable?
Bare Act Text
(1) by an extract certified under the hand of the officer having the custody of the records of the Court in which such conviction or acquittal was held, to be a copy of the sentence or order, or
(2) in case of a conviction, either by a certificate signed by the officer in charge of the jail in which the punishment or any part thereof was undergone, or by production of the warrant of commitment under which the punishment was suffered,
together with, in each of such cases, evidence as to the identity of the accused person with the person so convicted or acquitted.
Important Sub-Sections Explained
Section 298(1)
This sub-section outlines that a previous conviction or acquittal can be legally proved by presenting a certified copy of the sentence or order from the court that originally delivered the decision. This ensures that official judicial records serve as the primary and authoritative proof.
Section 298(2)
This sub-section offers alternative methods specifically for proving a previous conviction, allowing for the submission of a certificate from the jail authority where the punishment was served, or by producing the original warrant of commitment. These methods provide practical avenues for establishing prior convictions, always requiring robust evidence to confirm the accused’s identity.
Landmark Judgements
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1961):
This Supreme Court judgment, while dealing with enhanced punishment under Section 75 IPC, implicitly underscored the procedural necessity of proving previous convictions. It affirmed that for a previous conviction to be a basis for enhanced punishment, it must be duly proved in accordance with law, and the identity of the accused with the previously convicted person must be established beyond doubt.
Ashraf Hussain Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2005):
The Bombay High Court, in this case, reiterated that Section 298 CrPC lays down the specific and mandatory modes for proving a previous conviction or acquittal. The court emphasized the critical importance of strictly adhering to these prescribed methods, especially the requirement of establishing the identity of the accused, when considering the application of provisions like Section 75 of the Indian Penal Code.