-
by sayum
03 April 2026 2:48 PM
Death Penalty Set Aside Due To Defective 313 CrPC Examination, In a deeply consequential ruling reaffirming that procedural fairness is paramount even in the most heinous of crimes, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on January 19, 2026, set aside the conviction and death sentence awarded to a man accused of raping and murdering a five-year-old girl, holding that failure to properly examine the accused under Section 313 CrPC (now Section 351 BNSS, 2023) had fatally undermined the trial.
Division Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur ruled that the Trial Court’s failure to put crucial incriminating evidence—especially the DNA and toxicology reports—to the accused rendered the entire trial procedurally defective, requiring remand of the case from the stage of Section 351 BNSS (formerly 313 CrPC).
“Circumstances Not Put To Accused Must Be Excluded From Consideration” – Court Terms DNA Report Omission A Grave Procedural Error
The accused, Vinod @ Munna, had been convicted by the Sessions Court for a horrific crime that occurred on the night of December 20-21, 2020, involving the abduction, rape (both vaginal and anal), and murder of a five-year-old girl, referred to affectionately by the Court as “Laadli”. The victim had just turned five that very day.
Vinod was sentenced to death under Section 302 IPC, life imprisonment under Section 376AB IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and additional sentences for unnatural sex (Section 377 IPC), kidnapping (Sections 365 and 367 IPC), and other related offences.
However, while considering the death sentence confirmation reference and the appeal filed by the convict, the High Court took serious exception to the manner in which the Trial Court conducted the mandatory examination of the accused under Section 313 CrPC.
“Ext PZ, the DNA report... is the most crucial document. If it is read in evidence without affording an opportunity to the accused under Section 351 BNSS to explain the same, it is most likely to cause prejudice to the convict,” the Court said in no uncertain terms. [Para 25]
This omission, the Court noted, was not limited to the DNA report. The toxicology report, the Section 164 CrPC statements of the victim’s parents, and several other vital material circumstances were also not put to the accused.
"Long Omnibus Questions Defeat the Very Purpose of 313 CrPC" – High Court Criticises Manner of Questioning
In scathing remarks, the Bench found the entire 313 CrPC exercise to be perfunctory, observing that instead of formulating specific and intelligible questions, the Trial Court dumped entire witness statements and documents into single omnibus questions, rendering them incomprehensible to a layperson.
“To answer such long questions would be incomprehensible for ordinary people... This was contrary to the requirement of Section 313 CrPC, 1973,” the Court held. [Para 29]
The Court emphasised that such questioning is not a mere formality, especially in capital cases. Drawing from decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence, including Tara Singh v. State (1951) and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1985), the High Court reiterated:
“The law is clear: Circumstances not put to the accused under Section 313 CrPC must be excluded from consideration. And in a case involving capital punishment, such a lapse is not curable by assumption or inference.” [Para 24]
Trial Court Failed to Observe Mandatory Safeguards in Death Penalty Case
The Court went on to note that the trial had proceeded with undue haste, without scrupulous adherence to the heightened procedural safeguards that must govern any case where the State seeks to extinguish life through the death penalty.
Citing the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Irfan @ Bhayu Mevati v. State of M.P. (2025), the Court stressed: “In capital punishment cases, providing a fair opportunity to the accused to defend himself is absolutely imperative and non-negotiable.” [Para 59]
The Court also noted that the accused, during his original 313 CrPC statement, had claimed that he was unconscious due to an assault by an unknown person, and that the crime was not committed by him. However, without having been confronted with the DNA report or toxicology evidence, his opportunity to explain or defend was illusory.
Remand Ordered From 351 BNSS Stage – Murder Reference Rendered Infructuous
Although the High Court noted that defects in 313 CrPC can be curable in some cases, it held that given the nature of omissions, the rights of the defence, and the gravity of the punishment, this was not a case for appellate cure.
“The only option available with this Court to do justice to the accused and the victim and her family is to remand the case back to the Trial Court to begin the trial from the stage of recording the statement of the accused under Section 351 BNSS,” the Bench concluded. [Para 66]
Accordingly, the Court:
Set aside the conviction and death sentence;
Remanded the matter to the Sessions Court for re-commencement of trial from the 351 BNSS (313 CrPC) stage;
Directed proper and fair questioning on each material circumstance;
Disposed of the pending Murder Reference as infructuous.
The Court clarified that it had not commented on the merits of the prosecution case, and that all issues would remain open for determination afresh.
Justice Must Balance Victim's Rights And Accused's Right To Fair Trial
While the Court expressed empathy with the horrific nature of the crime and the loss suffered by the victim’s family, it underscored that a fair trial cannot be compromised, even in the face of public outrage or gravity of allegations.
“Criminal Justice warrants meticulously following procedural standards... Every ‘i’ must be dotted and every ‘t’ crossed.” [Para 30]
The ruling sends a powerful message to all trial courts across the country: compliance with Section 313 CrPC (now Section 351 BNSS) is not a box-ticking formality, especially when a human life is at stake. The Court has reminded the judiciary that the legitimacy of any conviction, particularly one leading to the gallows, stands only as strong as the fairness of the process that leads to it.
Date of Decision: January 19, 2026
Case Title: State of Haryana v. Vinod @ Munna
