Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-005137-005138 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 1537/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL |
| Bench |
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedent on the scope of Section 313 CrPC |
| Type of Law | Criminal procedure |
| Questions of Law | Whether failure to put all material incriminating circumstances to the accused under Section 313 CrPC vitiates the trial and requires remand? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that Section 313 CrPC is mandatory and not a mere formality. Every material circumstance appearing in the prosecution evidence must be put, in question form, to the accused for explanation. General or omnibus questions followed by blanket denials are inadequate and constitute a serious irregularity. Non-compliance cannot be cured where prejudice to fair trial is established. A failure at this stage vitiates the conviction and warrants remand for fresh examination. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Court traced the object of Section 313 to principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem) and a direct dialogue between judge and accused. It emphasized that failure to ask each material point discloses a procedural infirmity. The prosecutor’s duty to assist in framing proper questions was equally stressed. The established tests from earlier judgments were applied to the appellants’ carbon-copy answers, showing manifest prejudice. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | On 31 March 2016, six accused allegedly attacked an informant’s family returning from fields, fatally assaulting Ghughali Pasi with a “katta.” The trial court convicted six persons under Sections 302/34 IPC (life imprisonment) and Sections 448/323/34 IPC (one year each), running concurrently. The High Court affirmed. Three appellants challenged non-compliance of Section 313 CrPC before the Supreme Court. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts conducting criminal trials |
| Persuasive For | High Courts and trial courts on Section 313 CrPC compliance |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Court reiterates that Section 313 CrPC is mandatory, not discretionary or a formality.
- General or omnibus questions and identical denials by multiple accused fail the “material circumstance” test.
- Prosecutors must assist the trial court in framing distinct, separate questions on each incriminating fact.
- Non-compliance with Section 313 CrPC is a serious irregularity that cannot be cured if prejudice to the accused is shown.
- Appeals on this ground alone can lead to remand for fresh recording of Section 313 CrPC statements, with a four-month completion directive.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court reviewed established jurisprudence on Section 313 CrPC (Sanatan Naskar; Indrakunwar; Raj Kumar).
- It restated the object: a direct dialogue between judge and accused, ensuring audi alteram partem.
- Appellants’ statements were carbon copies and failed to address specific incriminating circumstances.
- The prosecutor neglected the duty to frame proper questions, compounding the trial court’s lapse.
- Such procedural defects prejudiced the accused, vitiating the conviction and necessitating remand.
- A limited remand was ordered, directing the trial court to re-record Section 313 CrPC statements within four months.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellants):
- The trial court failed to comply with Section 313 CrPC by not putting every material circumstance appearing in the prosecution evidence.
- The questions were general, and denials were omnibus, depriving appellants of a fair chance to explain.
Respondent (State):
- No specific submissions on Section 313 compliance are recorded in the judgment.
Factual Background
On 31 March 2016, the informant’s family was attacked in Buxar, Bihar, resulting in the death of Ghughali Pasi by a purported “katta” assault. Six accused were tried; three (Chandan, Pappu, Gidik Pasi) challenged their convictions under Sections 302/34, 448/323/34 IPC. The High Court upheld the convictions. Before the Supreme Court, the appellants’ primary grievance was that Section 313 CrPC was not properly complied with.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 313 CrPC requires the court to question the accused on every material circumstance in the prosecution evidence, in a separate, specific and distinct manner.
- The Court held this requirement to be mandatory and grounded in natural justice (audi alteram partem).
- Statements under Section 313 are not substantive evidence but aid in testing the truth of the prosecution case.
- Non-compliance with Section 313 cannot be used to the prejudice of the accused and vitiates the trial if shown to be prejudicial.
Procedural Innovations
- The Supreme Court directed that remand proceedings (fresh Section 313 CrPC statements) be completed within four months from communication to counter the impact of memory lapse on fair trial.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed
- 📅 Time-Sensitive