The Delhi High Court declared that Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) is a constitutional right and a procedural safeguard to enable the accused to defend himself against incriminating evidence. It was opined that Section 313 is not a mere formality, rather it is a very significant provision in the context of the right to a fair trial under Article 21.
Brief Facts:
The case of the Prosecution was that the mother of the victim worked as a housemaid and the father of the victim used to drink heavily and mostly stayed at home. One day after returning from work, the victim told her mother that her father had shut all the windows and doors and forcibly put his private part into her mouth and inserted it into her vagina. The mother of the victim informed the Police and thereafter, the investigation started. The charge sheet was filed, and the trial commenced as the Appellant had pleaded not guilty.
The Appellant/Accused was convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and was sentenced to undergo 12 years of imprisonment along with a fine. The present appeal is preferred against the conviction and the judgment of the Trial Court.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Appellant contended that since there were material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the Prosecution witnesses, the Trial Court judgment is liable to be set aside. It was also argued that there was no direct evidence against the Appellant. It was further contended that the statements of the child victim, the sister of the victim, and the mother of the victim differ from each other and that the medical examination of the child also does not conclusively establish the commission of the unnatural offence. Another contention was that since the FSL report was not submitted to the Appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. it was fatal to the case of the Prosecution.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Respondent on the other hand contended that the guilt of the Appellant has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and that the ground of defect under Section 313, Cr.P.C. was not raised at the time of the arguments in the Trial Court and therefore, the judgment is sound.
Observations of the Court:
The High Court observed that the Trial Court had found the Appellant to be guilty and recorded submissions based on evidence on record. Concerning penetrative sexual assault, the Trial Court had recorded that all the statements were unchallenged, unrebutted, and uncontroverted. It was duly proved that the child was subject to sexual assault. With respect to the testimonies, the statements of the victim, the sister of the victim, and the mother of the victim were noted along with the FSL report.
For the FSL report not being provided to the Appellant, the Court noted that the opportunity was provided to the Appellant to cross-examine but the same was not availed and even the FSL report was provided.
Further, the Delhi High Court opined that Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is not just a statutory right it is a constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The main object of the section is to empower the Court to examine the accused so that he has an opportunity to explain the incriminating circumstances. It was expounded that the examination under Section 313 is not just a mere formality rather it is a procedural safeguard and specific questions about the incriminating material must be put to the Accused so that he can explain his defense.
The decision of the Court:
As for the present case, it was observed that the statement of Section 313 was recorded much before the production of the FSL report and hence, the evidence could not be put before the Appellant. Therefore, the Court decided to ignore the FSL report while deciding on the present case.
With respect to the testimonies of the prosecution witness, the Bench observed that concerning the alleged incident, there were no material contradictions, and the testimonies were consistent. The High Court further held that the fact that the relations of the husband and wife were non-cordial cannot raise a presumption that the mother has tutored the victim regarding the offence.
Based on the reasons, the Delhi High Court upheld the sentence and conviction of the Appellant and accordingly dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Ram Guru v. State (NCT OF DELHI)
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Case No.: CRL.A. No. 747 of 2017, CRL.M. (BAIL) 89/2021 & CRL.M.A. 20474/2022
Advocates for Appellant: Adv (DHCLSC)- Ms. Anu Narula
Advocates for Respondent: Shri. Utkarsh, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
