The division judge bench of the Patna High Court held that the sole purpose of putting the incriminating materials to an accused is to elicit his response and also to guarantee him a fair chance to defend himself. This is in recognition of the principles of audi alteram partem.
Brief Facts of the Case:
The factual matrix of the case is that while the deceased was coming back from the field, he was assaulted by the appellant. The incident occurred in front of the house of Govind Thakur who was not examined, however, his wife was examined. Thereafter, the case was registered under Section 302 of the IPC and the trial court convicted the appellant.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The appellant contended that since each witness had a direct connection to the deceased, it is impossible to completely rule out the potential that they made a prepared statement. It was also contended that even the place of the occurrence is not proved. At last, it was contended that no incriminating circumstances were put forward to the appellant to explain his defense.
Contentions of the State:
The state contended that although none of the witnesses explicitly stated that they witnessed the assault, the way they all narrated the events makes it obvious that they all witnessed the assault, but from different distances. It was also contended that in a criminal case, motive might not be all that important because the offender can only speak with clarity about his motivation, or why he carried out the heinous crime. At last, it was contended that incriminating materials must be pointed out and presented to the accused following Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was not necessary to present this information to the appellant because it was not verified during the investigation or trial that there was a rumour that the appellant had killed the deceased. After all, the deceased had taken his wife away. In these circumstances, the Trial Court's decision would not be considered illegal even if the questions posed to the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were extremely succinct, vague, and laconic.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble court observed that it was a crucial event that provided the foundation upon which the prosecution may have effectively relied, when the deceased's son learned of the claim that the deceased had taken away the appellant's wife. Even in the question of law, it is apodictic that motive should not be taken for granted; nonetheless, if it is, it must be followed logically through to the end. The prosecution completely overlooked the motive behind the commission of the act of murder.
It was also observed that since Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is so well-established, the legislation surrounding this condition has long since become trite. The accused is only given incriminating evidence in order to get a response from him and to ensure that he has an equal opportunity to refute the allegations made against him. This is in recognition of the principles of audi alteram partem.
The court relied upon the judgments titled S. Harnam Singh vs. State of Delhi Administration, Raj Kumar @ Suman vs. State (NCT of Delhi),
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that the trial proceedings to be completely vitiated and the appellant has to be given the benefit of the doubt.
The Decision of the Court:
With the above direction, the court acquitted the appellant of the charge of murder and the court allowed the appeal.
Case Title: Bhola Paswan vs. The State of Bihar
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nani Tagia
Case No.: Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1037 of 2017
Advocate for the Appellant: Ms. Vaishnavi Singh, Advocate
Advocate for the State: Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, APP
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
