The division judge bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Chandra Prakash Singh of the Patna High Court observed that the examination of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C. should not be held in a perfunctory manner.
HC Bench also observed that mere non-examination of the Investigating Officer would not entail any benefit to the accused unless it is shown that such non-examination has caused prejudice to the case of the accused.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that when the informant while heading towards the south of the village reached the house of Ramsharan Yadav, he saw that five ploughs were being run on his land and on which he had sown paddy seedlings. It was furthermore alleged by the informant that seven of the accused persons were standing on the ridge and when he reached the field, he saw that they were getting the field ploughed.
When the informant protested this, they replied that the land belonged to them and asked him to go otherwise he would be killed. Then, one of the accused persons chased him and the informant ran away but after some time he tumbled down and the accused person assaulted him with a garasa on his head. Domi Mahto and Mahanth Mahto (deceased) rushed to rescue the informant and the other accused persons also rushed to the place and then, they were also assaulted by the accused persons. Thereafter, the accused fled away when villagers arrived at the scene of the incident. The injured were taken by the villagers to the police station. The charges were framed against the accused persons and the trial court convicted the Appellants.
Contentions of the Appellant
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant contended that the judgment of conviction by the trial court suffered from several infirmities. It was furthermore contended that no fair chance was given to the accused persons in order to defend their case, particularly the flawed examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. caused prejudice to the appellant. Also, the investigating officer was not produced as a prosecution witness and no explanation was given for the same.
Contentions of the State
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state contended that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and the judgment of the trial court requires no interference. It was furthermore contended that the objections regarding Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. should be raised at the earliest. Also, no prejudice has been caused to the appellant by the non-examination of the investigating officers.
Relevant issues before the court
- Whether the defective examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C. really prejudiced the accused persons in conveying them to what was required by them to be explained, thus causing serious prejudice to the defence?
- Whether the non-examination of the Investigating Officer by the prosecution has resulted in prejudice to the defence of the appellants
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble court observed that under section 313 of the CrPC, the accused should not be subjected to a perfunctory examination. A fair chance must be given to the accused to defend himself and explain the grounds behind his allegation. The trial Court should therefore be aware of the objective behind this provision while questioning the accused.
The court relied upon the judgments titled Reena Hazarika v. State of Assam, and Jai Prakash Tiwari vs State of Madhya Pradesh.
Also, neither the charges under sections 302/34, 302/149, 323, 325/34, and 147 of the Penal Code nor the questions put forth in the examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. specify the weapons used by each of the appellants and court furthermore observed that the appellants have been denied a fair opportunity to defend their case and thereby a prejudice has been caused to the appellants.
It was noted that the accused would not gain anything from simply not questioning the investigating officer unless it could be demonstrated that doing so could negatively affect their case.
It was also noted that the absence of the Investigating Officer's examination unquestionably caused prejudice to the appellant’s defense because the location of the incident is still unverified and because the appellants were denied the opportunity to question the Investigating Officer about the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.
Based on these considerations, the court set aside the judgment and the order of conviction passed by the trial court.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court allowed the present criminal appeal.
Case Title: Rambilash Mahto v. State of Bihar
Coram: Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Chandra Prakash Singh
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.111 of 1996
Advocates for the Appellant: Mr. Amish Kumar, Advocate Mr. Shankar Kumar Choudhary, Mr. K.C. Jha, Advocate Mr. P. Thakur, Advocate Mr. Rajan Prakash, Advocate Mr. Lal Babu Singh, Advocate
Advocates for the State: Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, APP
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
