Summary Security Force Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Civil Offences Beyond Simple Hurt And Theft: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Vague Allegations Cannot Dissolve a Sacred Marital Relationship: Karnataka High Court Upholds Dismissal of Divorce Petition Daughters Entitled to Coparcenary Rights in Ancestral Property under Hindu Succession Act, 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Divorce | False Allegations of Domestic Violence and Paternity Questions Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Hostile Witness Testimony Admissible if Corroborated by Independent Evidence: Punjab and Haryana High Court Fraud Must Be Specifically Pleaded and Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt to Invalidate Registered Documents: Andhra Pradesh High Court Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Rash Driving Conviction But Grants Probation to First-Time Offender Bus Driver Orissa High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Husband Convicted of Wife's Murder Merit Cannot Be Sacrificed for Procedural Technicalities in NEET UG Admissions: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Upholds Partition Decrees: Unregistered Partition Deed Inadmissible, Fails to Prove Prior Partition - Joint Hindu Family Property Presumed Undivided: Patna High Court Section 195(1)(b) CrPC | Judicial Integrity Cannot Be Undermined: Supreme Court Restores Evidence Tampering Case In a NDPS Case Readiness and Willingness, Not Time, Decide Equity in Sale Agreements: Supreme Court Denies Specific Performance Prolonged Detention Violates Fundamental Rights Under Article 21: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Money Laundering Case DV ACT | Economic Abuse Includes Alienation of Assets, Necessitating Protection Orders: Allahabad High Court Illegal Structures to Face Demolition: Bombay HC Directs Strict Action Against Unauthorized Constructions Justice Must Extend to the Last Person Behind Bars: Supreme Court Pushes for Full Implementation of BNSS Section 479 to Relieve Undertrial Prisoners Efficiency Over Central Oversight: Supreme Court Asserts Need for Localized SIT in Chennai Case Partition, Not Injunction, Is Remedy for Joint Property Disputes: P&H High Court Dismisses Plea Subsequent Purchaser Can Question Plaintiff’s Intent: MP High Court Clarifies Specific Relief Act

Non-compliance with Section 313 Cr.PC Results in Overturning of Conviction: Supreme Court Emphasizes 'Material Prejudice

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


High Court's affirmation of life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC set aside due to procedural lapses in Section 313 Cr.PC examination.

The Supreme Court of India has overturned the conviction of Naresh Kumar, previously sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC, citing significant procedural lapses during his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC). The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sandeep Mehta, underscores the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards to prevent miscarriages of justice.

The case dates back to an incident on June 14, 1995, where an altercation over spilled water escalated, leading to the stabbing and subsequent death of Arun Kumar. Naresh Kumar, accused No. 4 in the sessions case, was alleged to have instigated his brother Mahinder Kumar to commit the murder, holding the victim to facilitate the stabbing. The trial court convicted Naresh Kumar under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC, a conviction later upheld by the Delhi High Court.

The Supreme Court's decision primarily revolves around the procedural lapses during Naresh Kumar's examination under Section 313 Cr.PC. The Court noted that crucial incriminating circumstances, including the appellant's alleged exhortation to kill the victim and his act of holding the victim during the stabbing, were not presented to Naresh Kumar during his examination under Section 313 Cr.PC.

The Court emphasized that the failure to put these critical incriminating circumstances to the appellant deprived him of an opportunity to explain or defend against these allegations, resulting in material prejudice and a miscarriage of justice. The Court stated, "The non-questioning or inadequate questioning on incriminating circumstances by itself would not vitiate the trial unless it resulted in material prejudice to the accused"​​.

The judgment highlighted the principle that an accused must be given a fair opportunity to explain any incriminating evidence against them, as enshrined in Section 313 Cr.PC. The failure to comply with this procedural requirement, especially in cases involving severe penalties such as life imprisonment or death, can render the trial unfair and unjust​​.

Justice Ravikumar remarked, "The appellant was materially prejudiced and it had resulted in blatant miscarriage of justice. The failure as above is not a curable defect and it is nothing but a patent illegality vitiating the trial qua the appellant"​​.

The Supreme Court's judgment underscores the critical importance of procedural compliance in criminal trials to ensure justice is served. By setting aside Naresh Kumar's conviction, the Court has reinforced the necessity of providing accused individuals with a full and fair opportunity to defend themselves against all allegations. This decision is expected to have significant implications for the conduct of criminal trials, particularly concerning the application of Section 313 Cr.PC, thereby strengthening the procedural safeguards within the Indian judicial system.

 

Date of Decision: July 8, 2024

Naresh Kumar vs. State of Delhi

 

Similar News