Section 313 CrPC Is Not a Ritual — Conviction Set Aside for Mechanical Accused Examination: Supreme Court Remands Bihar Murder Case

“A trial is a function of memory... when that memory is denied articulation through proper questioning, justice is compromised” – In a sharp rebuke to the failure of trial courts and prosecutors in safeguarding procedural fairness, the Supreme Court of India set aside the conviction and life sentence imposed on three accused persons in a 2016 Bihar murder case, solely on the ground of serious non-compliance with Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, in the case of Chandan Pasi & Ors. v. State of Bihar, ruled that the accused were denied a fair trial because the statutory examination under Section 313 CrPC — the vital opportunity for an accused to explain the evidence against them — was vague, mechanical, and generic, amounting to a clear violation of natural justice.

The Court, invoking a series of binding precedents, remanded the matter back to the trial court for de novo proceedings limited to the 313 CrPC stage, and directed that the trial be concluded within four months.

"Statements Given by All Accused Were Carbon Copies of Each Other": Court Slams Trial Court and Prosecutor

In the present case, three of the six convicts — Chandan Pasi, Pappu Pasi, and Gidik Pasi — approached the Supreme Court challenging their conviction under Sections 302/34, 448/34, and 323/34 IPC, primarily on the ground that their statements under Section 313 CrPC were not properly recorded.

The Court found that only four generic questions were asked during their examination — the most crucial of which merely summarized the allegations and did not put any specific incriminating material to each individual accused.

Calling the process a “sorry state of affairs”, the Supreme Court observed:

“Out of the four questions asked, directly related to the sequence of events, were only two. The second question was as general as can be… with reference to only the bare allegations, to which an omnibus denial was issued.”

Worse, the Court noted that the statements of all three appellants were identical — indicating a mechanical and non-judicious approach. The Bench further criticized the prosecutor for failing in their role:

“In the desire to secure a conviction… the prosecutor also let their duty of assisting the Court… fall by the wayside. The prosecutor is an officer of the Court… not merely a tool to secure convictions.”

Section 313 CrPC Is a Dialogue, Not a Monologue

Reiterating established legal principles, the Supreme Court emphasized that Section 313 CrPC is not a procedural ritual but a constitutional safeguard flowing from the principle of audi alteram partem (hear the other side).

Citing its own prior decisions, including Sanatan Naskar v. State of W.B. (2010), Indrakunwar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2023), and Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023), the Court reaffirmed:

“The primary purpose is to establish a direct dialogue between the court and the accused… to put every important incriminating piece of evidence to the accused and grant him an opportunity to answer and explain.”

The judgment observed that failure to do so causes serious prejudice, and such prejudice is not curable merely because the trial has otherwise been conducted.

Remand Limited to Three Appellants: Fresh 313 Statements to Be Recorded

The appeals were allowed only for three of the six convicts, i.e., Chandan Pasi, Pappu Pasi, and Gidik Pasi, as they were the only ones who approached the Supreme Court on this ground. The findings qua the other accused were left undisturbed.

The Court directed:

“The matter is sent back to the concerned Trial Court to recommence from the stage of the recording of the Section 313 CrPC statements… to be completed within four months.”

The Court also reminded that memory plays a critical role in trial proceedings and emphasized the urgency of retrial:

“A trial is a function of memory; it is this memory that, when translated into spoken word testimony on oath, becomes evidence… susceptible to the vagaries of time.”

The Registrar (Judicial) was directed to communicate this order to the Registrar General of the Patna High Court, who shall ensure compliance by the trial court.

Six Accused Convicted for Murder in 2016 Village Assault Case

The case stems from a violent incident on March 31, 2016, in which Ghughali Pasi was killed in front of his family. The prosecution alleged that the accused surrounded the informant’s family and shot the victim with a katta (country-made pistol). A total of six persons were convicted in Sessions Trial No. 256 of 2016 by the District and Sessions Judge, Buxar, and sentenced to life imprisonment on March 29, 2017.

Their conviction was affirmed by the Patna High Court on September 4, 2024, in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 443 of 2017, which led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

However, the apex court did not go into the merits of the conviction and limited its decision exclusively to the flawed Section 313 CrPC compliance, noting:

“On this ground alone, the Appeals are allowed… we need not delve into the other grounds.”

Procedural Safeguards Are Not Optional in a Criminal Trial

This judgment is a resounding reminder that procedural fairness is the bedrock of a criminal trial, and mechanical compliance with statutory provisions is not sufficient. The Court has once again laid emphasis on the accused's right to a meaningful opportunity to respond to the evidence against them, and that courts and prosecutors alike must uphold this duty diligently.

By granting a limited remand, the Supreme Court has ensured that the trial is not rendered void in its entirety, but that justice is done in substance, not just in form.

Date of Decision: 01 December 2025