Dialogue Between Accused And Court Is Essential For Fair Trial: J&K High Court Sets Aside Conviction, Orders Retrial

Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul, while setting aside the conviction of three men in a 2002 acid attack case observed,

“It is worthwhile to mention here that the object of Section 342 Cr.P.C. to establish a direct dialogue between the court and accused. If a point in the evidence is important against accused and conviction is intended to be based upon it, it is a right and proper that accused should be questioned about the matter and be given an opportunity of explaining it”.

Justice Koul made these observations while hearing a criminal conviction appeal that originated from an FIR lodged in 2002 alleging an acid attack on one Gulzar Ahmad Mir. The appellants were convicted by the Principal Sessions Judge, Pulwama, in 2015.

Challenging the conviction, the appellants, through their counsel S.N. Ratanpuri, argued that the trial court had failed to comply with the provisions of Section 342 CrPC, which mandates that the accused be given an opportunity to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. He further contended that the court had not put all the incriminating circumstances to the accused, depriving them of a fair chance to present their defense.

Adjudicating the matter Justice Koul highlighted that the objective of Section 342 CrPC (paralleling Section 313 CrPC) is to establish a dialogue between the court and the accused. This is crucial for the accused to explain any incriminating evidence the court said while adding that mere procedural formalities without substantive engagement could prejudice the accused, impairing the trial's fairness.

“The failure to put material circumstances to the accused amounts to a serious irregularity. It will vitiate the trial if it is shown to have prejudiced the accused. If any irregularity in putting the material circumstance to the accused does not result in failure of justice, it becomes a curable defect. However, while deciding whether the defect can be cured, one of the considerations will be the passage of time from the date of the incident”, the bench underscored.

Noting that the Trial Court did not adequately inform the accused of their right to lead evidence in their defense, as mandated by Sections 273 and 274 erstwhile J&K CrPC, Justice Koul referenced several Supreme Court judgments, reinforcing that failure to properly examine the accused under these sections constitutes a significant procedural defect, potentially invalidating the trial.

The Court pointed out that the accused's right to a fair trial includes the right to silence, presumption of innocence, and the prosecution's burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Any infringement of these rights must show actual prejudice to the accused, affecting the trial's outcome, it emphasised.

Setting aside the earlier conviction and sentencing the court remanding the case back to the Trial Court. The lower court is directed to re-examine the accused under Section 342 CrPC, allowing them the opportunity to present a defense as envisaged by law, the bench concluded.

Case Title: Nazir Ahmad Mir Vs State of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 219

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment