Recently, the Supreme Court set aside the concurrent conviction of three appellants, holding that the Trial Court had failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 313 CrPC, thereby compromising the fairness of the criminal trial. The Court was dealing with a matter arising from a murder case in which six persons had been sentenced to life imprisonment, and the High Court had affirmed the conviction. In a significant observation, the Court stressed that “Section 313 is not a formality but a direct dialogue between the Court and the accused.”
Brief Facts:
The case stems from an incident dated 31 March 2016, when the informant, along with his family members, was returning from agricultural fields. It was alleged that the accused persons surrounded them and assaulted Ghughali Pasi with a katta, resulting in his death. Separate allegations of assault were also made against another accused.
The Trial Court convicted six individuals under Section 302/34 IPC and other minor offences, awarding them life imprisonment. One accused was treated as a juvenile. On appeal, the Patna High Court upheld the conviction, leading to the present challenge before the Supreme Court by three of the convicts, Chandan Pasi, Pappu Pasi, and Gidik Pasi.
Contentions of the Appellants:
The primary submission before the Apex Court was that the Trial Court had failed to put all material incriminating circumstances to the accused, thereby violating Section 313 CrPC. It was argued that the questioning under this provision was perfunctory, mechanical, and devoid of particulars. As the Supreme Court had already indicated at the notice stage, if this ground was valid, it would go to the root of the conviction and warrant remand.
Observation of the Court:
The Court embarked on an extensive discussion of the purpose, scope and mandatory nature of Section 313 CrPC, reiterating that it is an essential component of a fair trial. The Court quoted earlier precedents, including Sanatan Naskar v. State of W.B., emphasising that, “The primary purpose is to establish a direct dialogue between the Court and the accused… to put every important incriminating piece of evidence to the accused and grant him an opportunity to answer and explain.” Similarly, in Indrakunwar v. State of Chhattisgarh, the Court reaffirmed that, “This process is not a matter of procedural formality but flows from the cardinal principle of natural justice, audi alteram partem.”
The Apex Court then examined the actual statements of the three appellants and found them to be virtually identical, with only four questions asked, two of which were stated in the most general terms. The Court noted that the questions failed to reflect the material circumstances emerging from the evidence.
The Court expressed strong displeasure, observing, “The statements given by all three persons are carbon copies of each other. How such statements can pass muster is something which we fail to understand.” It held that the Trial Judge failed to conduct the examination meaningfully, and the prosecutor too failed in the duty to assist the Court, noting that, “In the desire to secure a conviction, the prosecutor also let their duty fall by the wayside.” The Court declared that such a non-compliant exercise materially prejudices the accused and strikes at the root of a fair criminal trial.
The decision of the Court:
On finding a clear violation of Section 313 CrPC, the Supreme Court held that it was unnecessary to examine any other grounds. The conviction of the three appellants was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court to recommence proceedings from the stage of recording fresh Section 313 statements. The Court clarified that the remand would operate only in respect of the three appellants before it, and the findings recorded against the remaining accused would continue to stand unaffected.
Noting that the incident pertains to the year 2016, the Top Court further directed the Trial Court to conclude the proceedings within four months. The Registrar (Judicial) was instructed to immediately communicate the judgment to the Patna High Court to ensure timely compliance.
Case Title: Chandan Pasi & Ors. Vs. The State of the Bihar
Case No.: SLP (Crl.) No (s). 3685-3686 of 2025
Coram: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Anjana Prakash (Sr. Adv.), Anuj Prakaash, Niraj Dubey, Pradum Kumar, Kumar Mihir (AOR)
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Azmat Hayat Amanullah (AOR), Rebecca Mishra, Ekta Kundu
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
