Supreme Court of India Annuls Conviction in Criminal Appeal over Non-Compliance with Section 313 CrPC

The Supreme Court of India recently heard a criminal appeal case involving the appellant, Raj Kumar @ Suman, who was charged with offenses punishable under Section 302 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the offense under Section 302, and to seven years of rigorous imprisonment for the offense under Section 307 read with Section 120B of IPC.

The appellant’s counsel argued that the only incriminating circumstance appearing against the appellant in the evidence produced by the prosecution had not been put to him in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). 

The counsel for the State contended that the appellant had not cross-examined the prosecution witness, PW5, and that the objection had not been raised at any time earlier.

The division bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal observed that the only allegation against the appellant was that while six accused entered the house of PW3, the appellant was standing outside with a katta (countrymade handgun) in his hand. The bench noted that the testimony of PW3 could not be relied upon to implicate the appellant as he had not deposed that the appellant was standing outside with a katta in his hand.

The Court further observed that the failure to put material circumstances to the accused amounts to a serious irregularity and can vitiate the trial if it is shown to have prejudiced the accused. The Court noted that the only alleged incriminating circumstance appearing against the appellant had not been put to him in his statement under Section 313 of CrPC and, therefore, he had no opportunity to explain the said circumstance.

The Court then relied upon its own precedents and summarized the law laid down by it as follows:

• It is the duty of the Trial Court to put each material circumstance appearing in the evidence against the accused specifically, distinctively and separately. 
• The material circumstance means the circumstance or the material on the basis of which the prosecution is seeking his conviction. 
• The object of examination of the accused under Section 313 is to enable the accused to explain any circumstance appearing against him in the evidence. 
• The Court must ordinarily eschew(abandon) material circumstances not put to the accused from consideration while dealing with the case of the particular accused.

The Court then observed that in the present case, there was only a solitary circumstance appearing in the evidence against the appellant, and that the appellant was not confronted during his examination under section 313 of CrPC with the only allegation of the prosecution against him. The Court noted that this was how, on facts, a serious prejudice was caused to the appellant.

The Court then opined that considering the passage of time, it would be unjust now at this stage to remit the case to the Trial Court for recording further statement of the appellant under Section 313 of CrPC. The Court set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant.

However, the Court observed that when the Trial Judge prepares questions to be put to the accused under Section 313, before putting the questions to the accused, the Judge can always provide copies of the said questions to the Public Prosecutor as well as the defence Counsel and seek their assistance for ensuring that every relevant material circumstance appearing against the accused is put to him. 

The Court noted that the lawyers must act as the officers of the Court and not as mouthpieces of their respective clients.

The Court further opined that while recording the statement under Section 313 of CrPC in cases involving a large number of prosecution witnesses, the Judicial Officers should take benefit of Section 313 (5) of CrPC, which will ensure that the chances of committing errors and omissions are minimized. 

Section 313(5) CrPC says that the Court may take help of Prosecutor and Defence Counsel in preparing relevant questions which are to be put to the accused and the Court may permit filing of written statement by the accused as sufficient compliance of this section.

The Court lamented that even after 72 years since the verdict in the case of Tara Singh v. State 1951 SCC OnLine SC 49, scant attention is paid to the salutary provision of Section 342 of CrPC of 1898. The Court directed that the Registry shall forward a copy of this decision to the National and all the State Judicial Academies.