-
by sayum
04 August 2026 1:39 PM
“Accused Cannot Be Convicted Without a Voice”, In a latest judgement Supreme Court of India in significant ruling that struck at the heart of procedural justice in criminal trials. Setting aside the life sentence awarded to three men convicted of murder, the Court held that their conviction stood vitiated due to a blatant violation of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), describing the trial court's approach as a "mechanical ritual" that undermined the accused’s fundamental right to defend themselves.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh found that the accused were not afforded a real opportunity to respond to incriminating material during their examination under Section 313 CrPC, and that such a failure went to the very root of a fair trial.
"The statements given by all three persons are carbon copies of each other," the Court pointedly noted, adding, “How such statements can pass muster at the hands of the learned Trial Judge is something which we fail to understand.”
The appeals had been filed by Chandan Pasi, Pappu Pasi, and Gidik Pasi, three of six individuals convicted for the murder of Ghughali Pasi in 2016, an incident arising from a violent assault during a field-side altercation. The trial court sentenced them to life imprisonment, which was later upheld by the Patna High Court. However, their conviction has now been overturned solely on the ground of procedural impropriety during their Section 313 CrPC statements.
“Section 313 Is Not A Hollow Ritual But A Bridge Between Court And Accused”
The Court began by stressing that a proper Section 313 CrPC examination is not a matter of legal formality but a cornerstone of natural justice, aimed at providing the accused an opportunity to personally explain incriminating circumstances.
“One of the non-negotiable requirements of a fair trial is that the accused persons should have ample opportunity to dispel the case and claims of the prosecution against them,” the judgment declared. “This ample opportunity… happens under Section 313 CrPC.”
Quoting its earlier ruling in Sanatan Naskar v. State of W.B., the Court reinforced that:
"The object of recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC is to put all incriminating evidence to the accused so as to provide him an opportunity to explain such incriminating circumstances… The primary purpose is to establish a direct dialogue between the court and the accused..."
However, in the present case, this obligation was reduced to a meaningless exercise. The Court found that only four generic questions were asked to each of the accused – two relating to the allegations, followed by a general question about the deposition of witnesses, and a final opportunity to say anything in defence.
Every accused answered in identical terms:
“False allegations. I am innocent.”
This, the Court concluded, reflected a lack of judicial application of mind and deprived the accused of the chance to individually respond to the evidence, especially when multiple co-accused were involved with distinct roles.
“Prosecutor’s Duty Is Not To Secure Conviction At Any Cost” – SC Reminds Officers Of Court
The Supreme Court also expressed concern over the prosecutorial apathy, finding that the public prosecutor abdicated the duty to ensure fair examination of the accused. The Bench minced no words in holding that the role of the prosecutor was “not just to assist the State, but to assist the Court in doing justice.”
“It is equally disturbing for us to see that in the desire to secure a conviction for the accused persons, the prosecutor also let their duty… fall by the wayside,” the Court observed. “They cannot act as a defence lawyer, but for the State, with the sole aim of making the gauntlet of punishment fall on the accused.”
Referring to Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. State of U.P., the Court reiterated that the prosecutor’s role is not adversarial, but quasi-judicial. Their primary responsibility is to facilitate a just and fair trial, and not to pursue convictions at any cost.
Supreme Court Orders Retrial From Stage of Section 313, Limits Relief to Three Accused
Noting that this “serious irregularity” in recording Section 313 statements resulted in prejudice to the accused, the Supreme Court ruled that the trial stood vitiated. The convictions and sentences of the three appellants were accordingly set aside, and the matter remanded to the Trial Court for retrial from the stage of Section 313 CrPC.
The Bench also clarified that its directions would not affect the conviction of other co-accused, who were not before the Court. “Our observations herein shall not affect the sanctity of the findings already arrived at, qua the other accused persons,” the Court held.
Given that the offence dates back to March 2016, the Court directed the Trial Court to complete the fresh proceedings within four months from the date of communication of the judgment.
In an evocative reminder of the fragility of memory in trial testimony, the Court noted:
“A trial is a function of memory; it is this memory that, when translated into spoken word testimony on oath, becomes evidence, and thus the same is susceptible to the vagaries of time.”
When Process Becomes Ritual, Justice Stands Compromised
The ruling in Chandan Pasi v. State of Bihar stands as a strong judicial signal that procedural fairness is non-negotiable, even in cases involving grave offences like murder. The Supreme Court has reasserted that Section 313 CrPC is not an empty formality, but a constitutional shield that enables the accused to defend against the full weight of the State's case.
By setting aside convictions on procedural grounds, the Court has re-established that a fair trial is not just about the outcome—but the integrity of the process.
“The accused cannot be tried in silence while the Court reads the prosecution’s script,” the Court warned—words that will echo as a caution to every trial judge and prosecutor.
Date of Decision: December 1, 2025
