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 |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure (Section 313 CrPC) |
| Questions of Law | Whether omission of material circumstances in examination under Section 313 CrPC vitiates conviction and mandates remand |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The trial court must put each incriminating circumstance appearing in the prosecution evidence to the accused distinctly and separately under Section 313 CrPC. Omnibus or carbon-copy questioning denies the accused a fair opportunity to explain and prejudices the trial, warranting remand. Compliance with Section 313 is mandatory, not a mere formality, and non-compliance that causes prejudice vitiates the conviction. The prosecutor, as an officer of the court, must assist in framing precise questions. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon |
The Court underscored audi alteram partem, the non-formal nature of Section 313 CrPC, and its object to establish a direct dialogue between court and accused. It adopted principles that material circumstances not put to the accused must be excluded, that the accused may offer alternative versions without prejudice, and that non-compliance causing prejudice is incurable. The prosecutor’s duty to assist the court in framing questions was also emphasized. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
On 31 March 2016, the informant’s family was attacked in a field; the informant’s father died from blows of a “katta.” Six accused were convicted under Sections 302/34, 448, and 323 IPC by the Sessions Judge, Buxar, and their appeals in the Patna High Court were dismissed. Three appellants challenged non-compliance with Section 313 CrPC before this Court. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Supreme Court held that carbon-copy or omnibus denials under Section 313 CrPC fail the “material circumstance” test and vitiate convictions.
- Emphasizes that questions must be framed distinctly, covering every incriminating piece of prosecution evidence.
- Clarifies the prosecutor’s role as court’s officer to assist in the framing of precise questions, not to build a case against the accused.
- Endorses remand limited to re-recording of Section 313 statements, preserving other findings.
- Imposes a four-month timeline for re-examination to mitigate memory-lapse prejudice.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
-
Principles of Section 313 CrPC
- Recalled scope and object: audi alteram partem, direct dialogue, non-formality.
- Cited Sanatan Naskar, Indrakunwar, Raj Kumar and related precedents.
-
Examination of Appellants’ Statements
- All three statements were identical, generalised and failed to cover material circumstances.
- Only two out of four questions addressed the sequence of events; both were omnibus denials.
-
Prejudice and Duty of the Prosecutor
- Non-compliance with mandatory requirements prejudiced accused.
- Prosecutor failed in duty to assist court in framing questions.
-
Remedial Order
- Appeals allowed on Section 313 ground alone.
- Matter remanded for fresh recording of statements within four months.
- Other concurrent findings left undisturbed for co-accused.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellants
- Primary ground: trial court did not comply with Section 313 CrPC by failing to put each incriminating circumstance distinctly.
- Omission led to denial of fair opportunity and prejudice.
State
- Challenged on multiple grounds, but primary issue taken up was Section 313 compliance.
Factual Background
Between 31 March 2016 and the trial stage, the following occurred:
- The informant and family were returning from fields when six accused attacked them; the informant’s father died from a “katta” assault.
- Trial Court convicted all accused under Sections 302/34 IPC (life sentence) and Sections 448 & 323 IPC (one year), concurrent.
- Patna High Court dismissed appeals under Section 374(2) CrPC, affirming conviction and sentence.
- Three appellants filed Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court, focusing on Section 313 non-compliance.
Statutory Analysis
-
Section 313 CrPC:
- Mandates examination of accused after prosecution evidence.
- Court must put “each material circumstance” appearing in evidence to the accused, distinctly and separately.
- Provides accused opportunity to explain or remain silent without prejudice.
- Non-compliance that causes prejudice vitiates conviction; appellate or trial courts may cure or remand if delay or injustice warrants.
Procedural Innovations
- Directed lower court to recommence from Section 313 stage and complete fresh examination within four months, recognizing memory-dependence of testimony.
- Ordered Registrar General of Patna High Court to communicate remand promptly.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed