Omission to Properly Examine Accused Under Section 313 CrPC Is Not a Mere Technicality—It Strikes at the Root of Fair Trial: Supreme Court Acquits In Murder Case

There Was No Real Examination Under Section 313 CrPC—Only a Summary of Prosecution’s Case Was Put, Not the Circumstances Against the Accused: In a powerful reaffirmation of the right to a fair trial, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction of a murder accused after 14 years of incarceration, solely on the ground that the requirements of Section 313(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) had been fundamentally violated. A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan held that the so-called examination of the accused was “no examination at all” within the meaning of law: “There is a difference between ‘circumstances appearing in the evidence against the accused’ and ‘case of the prosecution in brief’… What is put to the accused was not the evidence, but merely a summary narrative.”

The appellant, Shambhu Choudhary, was accused of participating in the murder of Ramashray Choudhary in Begusarai, Bihar, on 8 May 2011. He was tried along with seven others under Sections 302/149 and 120B of the IPC, as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act. While the High Court acquitted all co-accused, it altered the appellant’s conviction from Section 302/149 to a direct conviction under Section 302 IPC, and upheld the life sentence. Aggrieved by this, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Among the various grounds raised, the Court focused singularly on the improper recording of the accused’s statement under Section 313 CrPC—a statutory safeguard ensuring that an accused is confronted with the evidence against him and given an opportunity to respond.

In paragraph after paragraph, the bench dismantled the notion that the accused had been fairly examined. Instead of being asked about specific evidence, including what each eyewitness had stated, he was only presented with a generic question: “It is stated by the witnesses that on 8.5.11… you along with other accused… murdered Ramashray Choudhary by firing… What do you have to say?”

To which the appellant simply responded: “No Sir… I am innocent.”

The Court held this was legally insufficient: “It was the duty of the Court to point out to the accused what each prosecution witness, especially the eye witnesses, had deposed against him. Instead of doing that, what is put to the accused is only the case of the prosecution.”
Citing Raj Kumar @ Suman v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2023) 17 SCC 95], the bench reiterated: “The failure to put material circumstances to the accused amounts to a serious irregularity… and if it results in prejudice, it vitiates the trial.”

Why the Prejudice Was Real and Not Technical

Rejecting the High Court’s finding that the accused had failed to show prejudice, the bench made a resounding declaration: “The prejudice in this case is such that no argument is required to come to a conclusion… The purported examination is no examination under law.”

The Court emphasized that Section 313 serves a dual purpose: it not only provides the accused with a chance to offer an explanation but also gives them an opportunity to prepare and present a defence. In this case, the accused lost both.
“The accused must get full notice of each and every incriminating circumstance brought on record… so that he can effectively explain the same.”

Why Remand Was Not Possible
Although defects in Section 313 CrPC examination can sometimes be cured, the Court refused to remand the case:
“After a gap of 14 years from the incident, now we cannot pass an order of remand and expect the accused to answer questions posed to him about what happened in the year 2011.”

Further, the appellant had already served over 14 years in prison. Considering the lapse of time and the fatal flaw in the trial process, the Court acquitted him outright.

In a scathing indictment of the procedural failure, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted Shambhu Choudhary, directing that he be released immediately unless required in any other case. The judgment powerfully reaffirms that procedural safeguards under Section 313 CrPC are not optional, nor mere formalities: “The object of Section 313 CrPC is to give the accused a full and fair opportunity to defend himself. A summary interrogation cannot substitute a legal right.”

Date of Decision: 23 April 2025