SC: No conviction can be sustained if Section 313 CrPC Statement is recorded in a Mechanical manner, Read Judgment

“As all the incriminating evidence were not put to the notice of the appellants, therefore, there was a clear breach of Section 313 CrPC as well as the principle of audi alteram partem.” – SC

In a significant pronouncement addressing the core tenets of fair trial and procedural due process, the Supreme Court revisited the consequences of non-compliance with Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) in a high-stakes fraud and conspiracy case involving allegations of defrauding a public sector bank. Central to the case was whether a mechanical and insufficient examination of the accused under Section 313 CrPC, coupled with a claim of juvenility by one of the appellants, could vitiate a conviction upheld by two lower courts. Read on to explore how the Court tackled these fundamental questions of criminal jurisprudence and constitutional safeguards.

Brief facts:

The case concerns allegations of fraud and criminal conspiracy involving the appellants- Ramji Prasad Jaiswal, Ashok Kumar Jaiswal, and Bal Mukund Jaiswal who, along with others, were accused of defrauding the State Bank of India, Agriculture Market Yard Branch, Mohania. They allegedly colluded with the then Branch Manager, Ajay Kumar Srivastava, and others, including Shiv Narayan Bansal and Chetharu Singh, to dishonestly obtain payments against fake bills supported by forged transport receipts issued by M/s Rohtas Carriers, a non-existent transport agency allegedly operated by the appellants. Investigations revealed that the agency had no vehicles, godown, or place of business. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered the case and filed a chargesheet under Sections 420, 468, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The Special Judge, CBI Court, Patna convicted the appellants, and the High Court later upheld the convictions. The appellants have now approached the Supreme Court, primarily raising issues of procedural irregularities and the claim of juvenility of Bal Mukund Jaiswal at the time of the offence.

Contentions of the Appellant:

The appellants argued that the trial court violated the principles of natural justice by recording their statements under Section 313 of the CrPC in a mechanical and cursory manner. They contended that only four general questions were put to them, without specifically referring to the incriminating evidence presented by the prosecution witnesses, thereby causing serious prejudice to their defence. The counsel further submitted that appellant no. 3, Bal Mukund Jaiswal, was a juvenile at the time of the alleged offence, being approximately 17 years old as per his matriculation certificate, and emphasized that the plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage of proceedings. It was argued that his conviction and sentence were therefore legally unsustainable. Additionally, considering the prolonged delay of over two decades since the occurrence, the appellants urged that a remand for re-recording statements under Section 313 of the CrPC would be futile and sought acquittal on the grounds of procedural irregularity and, in Bal Mukund’s case, juvenility.

Contentions of the Respondent:

The respondent argued that the guilt of appellants Ramji Prasad Jaiswal and Ashok Kumar Jaiswal was clearly established through reliable prosecution evidence, and their conviction by the trial court, later affirmed by the High Court, was fully justified. The counsel submitted that there was substantial compliance with Section 313 CrPC, as the appellants were made aware of the substance of the prosecution’s case, and any minor irregularity in questioning should not vitiate the conviction, especially when the evidence overwhelmingly proved their involvement. Regarding appellant no. 3, Bal Mukund Jaiswal, the respondent conceded his juvenility at the time of the offence, as confirmed by a CBI inquiry and trial court findings, and left it to the Court to pass appropriate orders in that regard.

Observation of the Court:

The Division Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed, “There is no doubt that such omission, which is a serious irregularity, has completely vitiated the trial. Even if we take a more sanguine approach by taking the view that such omission did not result in the failure of justice, it is still a material defect albeit curable. In Raj Kumar (supra), this Court highlighted that while deciding whether such defect can be cured, one of the considerations will be the passage of time from the date of the incident.”

“As we have already noted, the period during which the offence was allegedly committed was from September, 1982 to December, 1982. Trial was concluded on 29.05.2006. Nineteen years have gone by since then. At this distant point of time, instead of aiding the cause of justice, it will lead to miscarriage of justice if the case qua the two appellants are remanded to the trial court to restart the trial from the stage of recording the statements of the accused persons under Section 313 CrPC”, added the Bench.

The Court critically examined the procedural and substantive issues raised in the appeal. On the issue of Bal Mukund Jaiswal’s juvenility, the Court noted that his matriculation certificate, verified as genuine by the CBI, established his date of birth as 24.12.1965, making him approximately 17 years old during the offence period. According to the Court’s order, the Special Judge conducted an inquiry under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (JJ Act), confirming his juvenility.

While throwing a light on the provisions of Section 7A of the JJ Act, the Court observed that it mandates an inquiry to determine juvenility, and upon such a finding, the juvenile must be forwarded to the Juvenile Justice Board for appropriate orders, with any prior sentence deemed ineffective. However, given that over four decades had passed since the offence, the Court held that remanding Bal Mukund’s case to the Juvenile Justice Board was “neither possible nor feasible.”

Further, the Court found the procedural irregularity in recoding the statements of the other appellants under Section 313 of the CrPC. The Court emphasized that “it is the duty of the trial court to put each material circumstance appearing in the evidence against the accused specifically, distinctively and separately,” as this enables the accused to explain incriminating evidence, aligning with the principle of audi alteram partem.

The Apex Court held that“Four questions generally were put to the appellants, that too, in a most mechanical manner. These questions did not reflect the specific prosecution evidence which came on record qua the appellants. As all the incriminating evidence were not put to the notice of the appellants, therefore, there was a clear breach of Section 313 CrPC as well as the principle of audi alteram partem. Certainly, this caused serious prejudice to the appellants to put forth their case”.

The Court noted that the trial court’s mechanical approach, asking only four general questions without referencing specific prosecution evidence, constituted a “serious irregularity” that vitiated the trial. The Court held that “The manner in which the trial court had recorded the statements of the appellants under Section 313 CrPC was not at all in tune with the requirements of the said provision as explained by this Court”.

It further considered whether this irregularity was curable and noted that “while deciding whether the defect can be cured, one of the considerations will be the passage of time from the date of the incident.” Given that 43 years had elapsed since the offence (1982) and 19 years since the trial’s conclusion (2006), the Court concluded that remanding the case to re-record statements would lead to a “miscarriage of justice.” Thus, the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt due to the procedural lapse, rendering their conviction and sentence untenable.

The decision of the Court:

In light of the foregoing discussion, the Top Court allowed the criminal appeal. The conviction and sentence of Bal Mukund Jaiswal were quashed on the ground that he was a juvenile at the time of the offence. As for Ramji Prasad Jaiswal and Ashok Kumar Jaiswal, their conviction and sentence were set aside due to serious procedural irregularities in recording their statements under Section 313 CrPC, which vitiated the trial. Considering the considerable lapse of time, the Court found that remanding the matter for a fresh trial was not feasible. The appellants, who were already on bail, had their bail bonds discharged.

Case Title: Ramji Prasad Jaiswal @ Ramjee Prasad Jaiswal and Ors. Vs. State Of Bihar

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 490 of 2025

Coram: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Advocate for Appellant: Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta, AOR Aditya Samaddar, Advocates Mudit Jain, Samprikta Ghoshal, Mahima Malhotra, Nitya Gupta, Aayush Goswami, and Saiful Haque.

Advocate for Respondent: ASG Vikramjit Banerjee, AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advocates Santosh Kumar, Bharti Tyagi, Abhishek Singh, Praneet Pranav, and Mrigank Pathak.

Read Judgment @ Lateslaws.com

Picture Source :