Violation of Section 313 CrPC Renders Murder Conviction Unsustainable, Amounts to Denial of Fair Trial under Article 21: Allahabad High Court

Serious Prejudice Caused to Accused by Failure to Confront with Murder Charge During Trial - Allahabad High Court delivered a significant ruling addressing the core principles of fair trial under criminal jurisprudence. The Court set aside the appellant’s conviction under Section 302 IPC while convicting him under Section 304-B IPC (dowry death), observing that the accused was never confronted with any evidence supporting the murder charge, thereby violating the safeguard of fair trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Dr. Gautam Chowdhary held — "A serious prejudice was caused to the appellant to the extent the principle of natural justice enshrined under Section 313 CrPC was not observed at the trial."

The Court further underlined that this omission directly resulted in miscarriage of justice.

The case arose from an FIR dated 13.10.2017 registered against Boby, accusing him of having throttled his wife Ruchi to death in their matrimonial home on 11.10.2017, within 14 months of marriage. The prosecution alleged that the motive behind the death was the non-fulfillment of an additional dowry demand. While the appellant's co-accused (family members) were acquitted, Boby alone was convicted by the trial court under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Despite the prosecution’s reliance on dowry harassment and the cause of death being throttling, the evidence was marred by key prosecution witnesses, including the parents of the deceased, turning hostile during trial. However, PW-1 (father of the deceased) during his examination-in-chief had supported the allegation of dowry demand and cruelty, though later, during cross-examination, he retracted.

The Court made it abundantly clear that: "At no stage of that statement being recorded, the accused was ever confronted or informed that any adverse circumstance had been noted in the prosecution evidence to hold him guilty of the much heavier offence of murder under Section 302 IPC."

The Bench observed that although an alternative charge under Section 302 IPC was framed during trial, no specific question relating to this charge was put to the accused under Section 313 CrPC, which mandates that every accused must be confronted with incriminating material appearing against him in evidence.

The Court stressed — "Unless inculpatory facts are first confronted to the accused, the risk of prejudice being caused to the accused, at the stage of leading defence evidence, may arise."

Further, the Bench emphasized the settled position of law: "It is trite law, nevertheless fundamental, that the prisoner's attention should be drawn to every inculpatory material so as to enable him to explain it. This is the basic fairness of a criminal trial and failures in this area may gravely imperil the validity of the trial itself, if consequential miscarriage of justice has flowed." — (Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793)

The Bench also took note of the hostile witnesses issue, relying on Bhajju @ Karan Singh v. State of M.P. (2012) 4 SCC 327 and reiterated: "Merely because a witness becomes hostile, it would not result in throwing out the prosecution case, but the court must see the relative effect of his testimony. If the evidence of a hostile witness is corroborated by other evidence, there is no legal bar to convict the accused."

In view of these findings, the High Court categorically ruled: "By not disclosing that adverse circumstance, the accused appellant was prejudiced and denied the opportunity to lead any evidence in defence, with respect to offence alleged under Section 302 IPC."

While setting aside the conviction under Section 302 IPC, the Court sustained the conviction under Section 304-B IPC, as the evidence sufficiently proved that the deceased was subjected to dowry harassment, and her death occurred under suspicious circumstances within seven years of marriage.

On sentencing, the Court said: "The punishment is modified to sentence for ten years. However, fine awarded by the trial court is maintained, as it is."

The Court concluded: "Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed."

"We find that a serious prejudice was caused to the appellant to the extent the principle of natural justice enshrined under Section 313 CrPC was not observed at the trial... Facts admit of no doubt or other opinion, in law."

The ruling has effectively re-affirmed that fair trial principles, especially the proper application of Section 313 CrPC, are not mere formalities but indispensable safeguards against wrongful convictions.

Date of decision: 20/03/2025