Recently, the Supreme Court took up a set of criminal appeals arising from a murder conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, coupled with charges of house trespass and simple hurt under Sections 448 and 323. The matter reached the Court after the conviction and concurrent confirmation by the appellate court, but what caught the Court’s attention was not the evidence of the incident itself, but rather the manner in which the trial court had handled a critical procedural safeguard meant to ensure fairness in criminal trials.
The case arose from an incident in which members of a family returning from agricultural work were allegedly surrounded and assaulted, resulting in the death of one individual and injuries to others. The trial court found multiple persons guilty, and the Appellate Court upheld those findings. Three of the convicted individuals approached the Supreme Court, raising several grounds, the foremost being that the trial court had failed to properly comply with Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which mandates that every incriminating circumstance appearing in the prosecution evidence must be put to the accused for their explanation.
It was argued that the examination under Section 313 CrPC was perfunctory, mechanical, and failed to bring to the accused’s attention the material circumstances relied upon for their conviction. They contended that the questions were generic, lacked specificity, and did not provide a genuine opportunity to respond, thereby causing prejudice to the defence. The State defended the trial, maintaining that the findings of guilt were correct and supported by evidence.
While analysing the record, the Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of the manner in which the Section 313 CrPC examination had been conducted. The Court noted that the statements of the accused were “carbon copies of each other” and highlighted the inadequacy of the questions put to them. The Bench remarked: “How such statements can pass muster at the hands of the learned Trial Judge is something which we fail to understand.” The Court further highlighted that only two vague questions related to the substance of the prosecution’s case were put to the accused, each followed by a mere omnibus denial, which, in the Court’s view, demonstrated “an abject failure… in complying with the basic tenets of law.” The Bench also criticised the prosecution’s role, noting that the public prosecutor “let their duty of assisting the Court… fall by the wayside,” reminding that a prosecutor is an officer of the court and not “a defence lawyer, but for the State, with the sole aim of making the gauntlet of punishment fall on the accused.”
After recording these observations on the serious irregularity in the Section 313 process, the Supreme Court held that it was unnecessary to enter into the remaining grounds of challenge. The Court concluded that the defect went to the root of the trial and therefore directed that the matter be sent back to the trial court to recommence proceedings from the stage of recording fresh statements under Section 313 CrPC. The directions were confined only to the appellants before the Court, leaving the earlier findings undisturbed as far as the other accused were concerned.
Case Title: Chandan Pasi & Ors V. The State of the Bihar
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No (S). 5137-5138 of 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjay Karol and Hon’ble Mr Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Counsel for the Appellant: Sr.Adv. Anjana Prakash, Adv. Anuj Prakash, Adv. Niraj Dubey, Adv. Pradum Kumar, AOR Kumar Mihir
Counsel for the Respondent: AOR . Azmat Hayat Amanullah Adv. Rebecca Mishra
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
