The Supreme Court emphasised the importance of Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC) for Judicial Officers. The Court opined that the purpose of examining the Accused under Section 313 is to enable them to explain any circumstance against them and that failing to do so can adversely affect the trial's fairness.
Brief Facts:
The Appellant was accused of conspiring to murder. The prosecution that the Appellant and five others entered Mr. Lal's house, and two of them fired bullets at Mr. Lal's mother and brother while the others attacked them with daggers and knives. Mr. Lal and another witness were also injured, and his brother died. The only allegation against the Appellant was that he was standing outside the house with a country-made handgun while the other Accused entered.
The Sessions Court convicted the Appellant for offences under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”).
The High Court affirmed the order and judgement of the District Court, and thus, the Appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.
Contentions of the Appellants:
It was argued that only one witness claimed to have seen the Appellant with a gun outside the gate. At the same time, another witness admitted that he had not seen the appellant on the day of the incident and had only heard about him from Ved Prakash. It was pointed out that although the High Court claimed that another witness had seen the Appellant, there was no evidence to support this. The only evidence against the Appellant was that he stood outside near the gallery gate with a katta. However, this was not put to him during his statement under Section 313 CrPC, which resulted in prejudice to the appellant and a miscarriage of justice.
Contentions of the Respondents:
It was argued that the Appellant did not cross-examine the witness. Further, it was alleged that objection regarding the omission or defect in recording the statement under Section 313 CrPC should be raised at the earliest so that the defect can be cured.
Moreover, the fact that the objection was not raised earlier demonstrated that the Appellant was not prejudiced by the Court's failure to put the only circumstance against the Appellant while recording his statement under Section 313 CrPC.
Observations of the Court:
The Supreme Court summarised the consistent law that every material circumstance appearing in the evidence against the Accused must be put forward distinctly, specifically, and separately by the Trial Court. It was opined that the purpose of examining the Accused under Section 313 CrPC is to allow them to explain any circumstance against them. Failing to put forward the material circumstances to the Accused can vitiate the trial if it is shown to have affected the Accused.
However, if such irregularity is curable, the Appellate Court can question the Accused on the material circumstance that was not put to them. In the case being considered, the Appellant was only accused based on a solitary circumstance appearing in the evidence, which was not put to him during the examination under Section 313 CrPC.
The Court concluded that considering the passage of time and the fact that the Appellant has already undergone incarceration for a long time, it would be unjust to remand the case to the trial Court. The Apex Court also noted the addition of Section 313(5) CrPC, which empowers the Court to take the help of the prosecutor while examining the accused. The Top Court reminded Judicial Officers of the significance of Section 313 CrPC and emphasised the need to understand its importance.
The decision of the Court:
The Supreme Court invalidated the conviction of the accused conviction. It allowed the appeal, thereby nullifying the impugned order and judgement of the Sessions Court. Thus, the order and judgement of the High Court were also annulled.
Case Title: Raj Kumar @ Suman v State (NCT of Delhi)
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1471 of 2023
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 469 SC
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka and Hon'ble Justice Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Advocates for Petitioner: Advs. Mr. Sumeet Verma, Mr. Sumit Kumar, Mr. Mahinder Pratap Singhand Mr. Vinay Kumar
Advocates for Respondent: Advs. Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, Mr. Shailendra P. Singh, and Mr. Rishabh Shivhare,
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
