Merely Three Generic Questions Asked Under Section 313 CrPC – This is Not Compliance, But a Mockery of Due Process: Supreme Court

“Trial Vitiated by Serious Procedural Defect in Section 313 CrPC Examination”, Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark ruling in Suresh Sahu & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand), Criminal Appeal No. 305 of 2024, where a two-judge bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta acquitted two men who had spent over three decades under the shadow of a murder conviction. The bench ruled that the trial stood vitiated due to “grave procedural lapses” under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, compounded by the suppression of the actual FIR, non-examination of the Investigating Officer, and unreliable prosecution evidence riddled with improvements and contradictions. The Court held that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt and ordered their immediate release.

A Case Tainted by Contradictions: The Long Journey of a 1990 Murder Trial

The genesis of the case dates back to May 11, 1990, when one Gajendra Prasad Gupta was allegedly assaulted near Jhinjhari village in Ranchi, sustaining fatal injuries. His father, Rameshwar Sahu (PW-3), claimed to have witnessed the attack and later lodged a Fardbeyan (statement) at R.M.C.H., Ranchi on May 12, 1990. Notably, this initial account did not name any accused. However, the very next day, on May 13, 1990, a second written report was submitted by the same informant, this time explicitly naming Suresh Sahu and Aditya Sahu, citing enmity over land acquisition-related employment.

The appellants were convicted by the Trial Court in 1994 under Sections 302, 302/149, and 120B of IPC, a decision which the Jharkhand High Court later modified in 2023 to a conviction under Section 302 read with 34 IPC, with a sentence of life imprisonment and a fine. The appellants challenged this conviction before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s Sharp Criticism of Section 313 CrPC Compliance

A critical turning point in the case was the defective recording of the accused’s statements under Section 313 CrPC, which the Supreme Court held had caused “serious prejudice” to the appellants. The trial court had posed only three generic questions to each accused, without specifically informing them of the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence.

“This defect goes to the root of the matter,” the Court declared. Quoting its earlier judgment in Ashok v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2024 INSC 919), the bench noted: “Unless all material circumstances appearing against the accused in evidence are put to him, he cannot decide whether he wants to lead any defence evidence.”

Further, the Court emphasized that the failure to comply with Section 313 CrPC was not a mere irregularity but one that vitiated the trial itself. Given the 35-year gap since the incident, the Court found it neither possible nor just to remand the matter for a fresh trial.

Fardbeyan Is the True FIR – Second Report Treated as Statement Under Section 161 CrPC

The Court further dismantled the prosecution’s case by rejecting the High Court’s finding that the second report dated May 13, 1990 (Exh. 5) was the real FIR.

“There is no escape from the conclusion that the prosecution deliberately superseded the actual FIR with an embellished version,” observed the Court.

In a scathing analysis, the bench held that the Fardbeyan recorded on May 12, 1990 (Exh. 1) at the hospital was the true FIR. Its omission of the accused’s names was deemed significant and indicative of subsequent improvements. The Court found the informant’s explanation — that his brothers took his signature on a blank page — to be “wholly unconvincing and bereft of substance.”

“The view taken by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court — that the Fardbeyan was written in the dark — is unacceptable,” held the Supreme Court.

Non-Examination of Investigating Officer Held Fatal

The prosecution’s failure to examine ASI R. Paswan, the officer who recorded both the Fardbeyan and the second report, was held to be a deliberate suppression of material evidence. Citing Harvinder Singh @ Bachhu v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1347), the Court held: “When a material witness who could unfold the genesis of the incident is deliberately withheld, the Court shall draw an adverse inference.”

This non-examination, combined with the unexplained contradictions between the two reports, was a fatal blow to the prosecution case.

“Unbelievable” Oral Dying Declaration and Delayed Statements of Deceased’s Sisters

Another key plank of the prosecution was the alleged oral dying declaration made by the deceased, naming Suresh and Aditya. This was supposedly heard by his sisters PW-1 (Tapeshwari Kumari) and PW-2 (Saroj Kumari). However, their statements were recorded 1.5 months after the incident, a delay that the Court found inexplicable and damaging to their credibility.

The Court further noted that the medical evidence contradicted the theory of a dying declaration. Dr. Ajit Kumar Chaudhary (PW-5), who conducted the postmortem, testified to grave cranial injuries including cracked skull bones and subdural hemorrhage, leading the Court to conclude:

“It is impossible to believe that, having received such grave head/cranial injuries, the deceased would have been in a position to speak, what to talk of making an oral dying declaration.”

Defence Witnesses Ignored by Courts Below

The Court also strongly rebuked both the Trial Court and High Court for ignoring the defence witnesses DW-1 and DW-2, who were named in the prosecution’s own report and who categorically stated that the appellants were not the assailants. The Supreme Court reiterated that defence witnesses are to be treated on par with prosecution witnesses in terms of evidentiary value.

Citing State of U.P. v. Babu Ram and Munshi Prasad v. State of Bihar, the Court held: “Testimony of defence witnesses carries the same evidentiary value as that of prosecution witnesses. The trial court and High Court failed to discharge their duty to fairly evaluate their evidence.”

“Prosecution Has Miserably Failed”: Appellants Acquitted After 35 Years

In its concluding remarks, the bench summed up its findings in unequivocal terms: “The prosecution has miserably failed to fasten the guilt upon the accused-appellants as there is total lack of credible evidence to indict them.”

The Supreme Court set aside the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and High Court, ordered the immediate release of the appellants, and allowed the appeal.

Date of Decision: November 27, 2025