Bombay High Court
Kailash S/O Devnath Ghode vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso Ps ... on 6 August, 2021
Bench: Manish Pitale
3-wp12.21.odt
1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 12 OF 2021
Kailash Devnath Ghode
-Vs.-
State of Mah., thr. PSO, PS Borgaon Manju, Dist.Akola
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S.V.Sirpurkar, counsel for the petitioner.
Ms Shamsi Haider, APP for respondent-State.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.
DATE : 06.08.2021
By this writ petition, the petitioner is raising a
grievance with respect to the manner in which the
Sessions Court in the present case put questions to the
petitioner (original accused) under section 313 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). It is specifically
contended that questions were put to the petitioner in
respect of statements of the witnesses recorded under
section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and other such inadmissible
material, which was not in consonance with the
requirement of section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Reliance is
placed on judgment of this Court in the case of Hamid
and others v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1999
(2) Mh.L.J. 491 and judgment of the Himachal Pradesh
High Court in the case of Smt.Sewaki v. State of
Himachal Pradesh, reported in 1981 Cri.L.J. 919.
2. On the other hand, the learned APP submitted
KHUNTE
3-wp12.21.odt
that questions were put to the petitioner in respect of
evidence that had come on record and that this Court
may pass appropriate orders in the matter.
3. Perusal of the questions put to the petitioner
under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. by the Sessions Court
do show that in some questions wholly inadmissible
material was to put to the petitioner (original accused).
This is impermissible under section 313 of the Cr.P.C.
for the reason that, what are to be put to the accused
under the said provision are material circumstances
in the evidence, clearly, specifically, distinctly and
separately so that the accused is aware of what is being
relied upon by the prosecution against him and he gets
an opportunity to explain the circumstances that may
have gone against him in the evidence. It is obvious
that material like statements of witnesses under section
161 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be put to the accused under
section 313 of the Cr.P.C. as material circumstances
appearing in the evidence.
4. Hence, the contention raised on behalf of the
petitioner deserves to be accepted. It is specifically
stated on behalf of the petitioner that question Nos.18,
22, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68 and 70
fall foul of the requirement of section 313 of the Cr.P.C.
This Court has perused the same and the said
contention raised on behalf of the petitioner deserves
acceptance.
5. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed
KHUNTE
3-wp12.21.odt
to the extent that question Nos.18, 22, 28, 29, 30, 31,
32, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68 and 70 are deleted from
the set of questions put to the petitioner under section
313 of the Cr.P.C. in the pending trial.
6. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE
KHUNTE
