Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Failure to Question Accused Under Section 313 of CrPC Leads to Vitiating Trial: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On 11 May 2023 , In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, held that the failure to properly question an accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) can result in the trial being vitiated.

The case involved an appeal filed by an accused challenging his conviction and sentence under Section 302 read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the Trial Court, which was upheld by the High Court.

Importance of Section 313 of CrPC: The Court emphasized the significance of Section 313, which requires the Trial Court to question the accused to enable them to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against them.

Precedents Cited: The Court referred to several landmark judgments, including Tara Singh v. State, Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, S. Harnam Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), Asraf Ali v. State of Assam, Samsul Haque v. State of Bihar, Vahitha v. State of Tamil Nadu, and Satyavir Singh v. State.

Material Circumstances and Prejudice: The Court noted that the failure to put material circumstances to the accused in their statement under Section 313 of CrPC amounts to a serious irregularity. If such irregularity causes prejudice to the accused, it can vitiate the trial.

Lack of Evidence Against the Appellant: In the present case, the Court found that there was only one sentence in the evidence against the appellant, and the appellant was not confronted with this allegation during their examination under Section 313 of CrPC.

Passage of Time: Considering that more than 27 years had passed since the incident took place, the Court held it would be unjust to remand the case for further statement under Section 313 of CrPC.

Role of Section 313(5) of CrPC: The Court highlighted the importance of Section 313(5), which allows the Trial Court to take the assistance of the prosecutor and defense counsel in preparing relevant questions for the accused, minimizing errors and omissions.

Need for Attention to Section 342: The Court expressed disappointment at the continued disregard for Section 342 of CrPC and called for the National and State Judicial Academies to address this issue.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The Court directed the respondent to release the appellant unless their detention was required in connection with any other case.

Case Title: Raj Kumar @ Suman Vs State (NCT of Delhi)

DATE OF DECISION: May 11, 2023

Latest Legal News