Jammu & Kashmir High Court Sets Aside Rape Conviction After 17 Yrs, Says Non-Compliance With Section 313 CrPC Prejudiced Accused
While setting aside a rape conviction handed down 17 years ago, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court highlighted a crucial failure on the part of the Trial Court to adhere to the mandatory procedure outlined in Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It emphasized that convicting the appellant-accused solely based on incriminating evidence, without providing an opportunity to...
While setting aside a rape conviction handed down 17 years ago, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court highlighted a crucial failure on the part of the Trial Court to adhere to the mandatory procedure outlined in Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
It emphasized that convicting the appellant-accused solely based on incriminating evidence, without providing an opportunity to the appellant to address and explain that evidence, was an invalid approach taken by the trial court.
"Trial Court without even perusing the statements made by the prosecution witnesses put the same to the appellant without referring the incriminating evidence to the appellant and it has no doubt caused prejudice to the appellant. Without referring the incriminating evidence to the appellant and seeking any explanation from the appellant, the appellant could not have been convicted by the learned trial court by placing reliance on that evidence," Justice Rajnesh Oswal observed.
The bench was hearing an appeal arising out of the judgment delivered by Additional Sessions Court at Jammu which convicted the appellant for the commission of offences under section 376, 456 RPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for seven years.
The appellant had assailed his conviction inter alia on the ground that the alleged incriminating evidence was not put to him in accordance with law.
The Court observed that only one question was asked from appellant to explain why the witnesses had deposed against him. He was not confronted with the incriminating statements made by those witnesses. Thus it observed,
"As per the mandate of section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Section 313 of the Central Code), the incriminating evidence brought on record is required to be put to the accused, so as to seek his explanation and in fact this provision is an embodiment of the principle of natural justice that no one should be condemned unheard...it is evident that no incriminating evidence with specific reference has been put to the appellant."
In order to further clarify the law on the subject the bench found it worthwhile to record the following observations of Supreme Court in Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand 2020:
"… Circumstances not put to an accused under Section 313 CrPC cannot be used against him, and must be excluded from consideration. In a criminal trial, the importance of the questions put to an accused are basic to the principles of natural justice as it provides him the opportunity not only to furnish his defence, but also to explain the incriminating circumstances against him. A probable defence raised by an accused is sufficient to rebut the accusation without the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt".
It also relied on Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) where Supreme Court held that failure to put material circumstances to the accused amounts to a serious irregularity and it will vitiate the trial if it is shown to have prejudiced the accused.
Thus highlighting the procedural lapse on the part of trial court in the instant matter, Justice Oswal set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. Noting that 21 years have lapsed since the alleged incident, Court said it would be unjust at this stage to remand the matter for examination of the appellant.
Case Title: Raman Masih Vs State of J&K
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 175
Counsel For Petitioner: Mr. Gagan Basotra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mohinder Kumar, Advocate
Counsel For Respondent: Mr. P. D. Singh, Dy. AG