Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sachin Sonker vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 March, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Anuradha Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13602
1 CRA-2435-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 17th OF MARCH, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2435 of 2019
SACHIN SONKER
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Alok Bagrechha, Advocate and Shri Ishan Jatavedus Tignath,
Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Gitesh Singh Thakur, Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
This appeal is filed being aggrieved of judgment dated 28.2.2019
passed by learned XVIII Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions
Trial No.1800360/2012 convicting the appellant for the offence under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing him to suffer
imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of
fine, to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one year and also
convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 25(1B)(A) of the
Arms Act, 1959 and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one
year with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo
additional rigorous imprisonment for two months.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13602
2 CRA-2435-2019
During the course of the argument, it has come on record and is
evident from the order sheet of learned Trial Court that the F.S.L. report was
received on 24.12.2018 and thereafter the case was fixed for final argument.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that neither any
question was put to the appellant with regard to the F.S.L report nor any
Exhibit was marked on it, yet it has been used while passing the impugned
judgment as is evident from Paragraph No.30 of the impugned judgment.
This has caused prejudice to the appellant inasmuch as neither he had any
occasion to cross-examine the expert and/or to put up his defence with regard
to the said F.S.L report. No questions were put to the appellant with regard to
the said F.S.L report under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 and, therefore, the impugned judgment dated 28.2.2019 passed by
XVIII Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial
No.1800360/2012 to this extent is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Learned Government Advocate for the State presses no objection to
these submissions.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
record and also the judgment of the Apex Court in Ajay Singh versus State
of Maharashtra (2007) 12 SCC 341 wherein the Apex Court in Paragraph
Nos.13 & 14 has held as under:-
''13. The object of examination under this Section is to give
the accused an opportunity to explain the case made against him.
This statement can be taken into consideration in judging his
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13602
3 CRA-2435-2019
innocence or guilt. Where there is an onus on the accused to
discharge, it depends on the facts and circumstances of the case if
such statement discharges the onus.
14. The word ''generally'' in sub-section (1)(b) does not limit
the nature of the questioning to one or more questions of a general
nature relating to the case, but it means that the question should
relate to the whole case generally and should also be limited to any
particular part or parts of it. The question must be framed in such
a way as to enable the accused to know what he is to explain, what
are the circumstances which are against him and for which an
explanation is needed. The whole object of the section is to afford
the accused a fair and proper opportunity of explaining
circumstances which appear against him and that the questions
must be fair and must be couched in a form which an ignorant or
illiterate person will be able to appreciate and understand. A
conviction based on the accused's failure to explain what he was
never asked to explain is bad in law. The whole object of enacting
Section 313 of the Code was that the attention of the accused
should be drawn to the specific points in the charge and in the
evidence on which the prosecution claims that the case is made out
against the accused so that he may be able to give such
explanation as he desires to give.''
In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Ajay Singh versus
State of Maharashtra (supra) that all adverse circumstances that may appear
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13602
4 CRA-2435-2019
from the evidence, are required to be put to the accused when he is examined
under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, we are of the opinion that the impugned
judgment dated 28.2.2019 passed by learned XVIII Additional Sessions
Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No.1800360/2012 suffers from the vice of
perversity and is hereby set aside.
The matter is remanded to the learned XVIII Additional Sessions
Judge, Jabalpur for the limited purpose, namely, (1) mark the exhibit on the
said F.S.L report and give opportunity of explanation under Section 313 of
the Cr.P.C and if occasion arises then permit the appellant to adduce
evidence in defence and further cross-examine the Investigating Officer if the
need being only on the aspect of the F.S.L. report dated 24.4.2013.
The learned Trial Court is requested to complete the aforesaid
proceedings within a period of thirty days of receipt of copy of the order of
remand.
In above terms, this criminal appeal is disposed of.
Record be sent back.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
amit
