Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Accused Not Entitled To Copies Of 'Unrelied' Upon Documents At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges Under Section 91 CrPC: Supreme Court Elected Representatives Have No Privilege To Resort To Violence; Criminal Antecedents Are Material For Bail Adjudication: Supreme Court Mere Absence Of Transport Documents Does Not Create A Presumption Of Violation Of Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004: Supreme Court Section 396 IPC | Conviction For 'Dacoity With Murder' Requires Proof That Murder Was Committed In The Course Of Dacoity: Allahabad High Court 'Developers Cannot Delay Conveyance For Eternity And Milk Additional FSI Benefits': Bombay High Court Upholds Societies' Deemed Conveyance Pre-Approval Statutory Dues Stand Extinguished Upon Approval Of Resolution Plan; GST Authorities Cannot Initiate Fresh Proceedings: Calcutta High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell With Delivery Of Possession Is Admissible In A Suit For Specific Performance: Delhi High Court Stigmatic Order Discharging Probationer Without Inquiry Is Void For Violation Of Natural Justice: Gujarat High Court Execution Proceedings | Court Cannot Impose Arbitrary Financial Conditions Without Reason In Stay Applications: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 528 BNSS | High Court Cannot Exercise Inherent Powers To Circumvent Statutory Bar Against Second Revision: Delhi High Court Advocate Empanelment | Restriction On Multiple Applications Is A Procedural Choice Within Employer’s Domain: Delhi High Court Acquittal Appeal | Double Presumption Of Innocence In Favour Of Accused Cannot Be Disturbed Merely Because Another View Is Possible: Gujarat High Court SC/ST Act | Offence Under Section 3(1)(g) Not Attracted If Dispossession Or Interference Is Not Due To Victim's Caste: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judicial Officer Must Maintain Distance From Practicing Advocates To Avoid Impropriety: Gujarat High Court Upholds Dismissal Section 183 BNSS | Investigating Officer Cannot Independently Record Further Statement Of Victim After Recording Before Magistrate: Karnataka High Court Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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