S.313 CrPC | Trial Court Should Avoid Posing Long & Arduous Queries To Accused: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court observed that under Section 313 CrPC, the trial court should avoid posing long and arduous queries to the accused and instead bring to his notice, in a concise form, only the incriminating evidence available on record against him. A Division Bench of Justices Suman Shyam and Malasari Nandi remarked that  section 313 CrPC is to afford a fair opportunity to the accused to explain each incriminating evidence available against him

The challenge arises out of a judgment of the Sessions Judge, Kamrup (M), who convicted three accused under Sections 120(B)/201/302 of the Indian Penal Code for murdering the deceased based on a conspiracy. While two convicts were awarded imprisonment for life and a fine, one accused was awarded the death sentence.

In the prosecution's case, the accused who has been granted the death sentence had criminally conspired to the deceased's death along with the other accused.

The appellant submits that the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. During the trial, the prosecution had examined as many as 20 witnesses, including the doctors who had conducted the post-mortem examinations, the Scientific Officer in the Directorate of Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), and the Investigating Officer. After the trial, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Their statements were recorded by the learned Court below.

The accused persons had also adduced evidence by examining three witnesses. After the trial, the Sessions Judge passed the impugned judgment convicting all the three accused persons and sentencing them accordingly.

Advocate Dr. Y. M. Choudhury, appearing for the appellants, submitted that other than four witnesses, all other witnesses examined by the prosecution side are either seizure witnesses or official witnesses. Although the prosecution has brought charges of criminal conspiracy and murder against the accused persons, none of those charges could be proved by the prosecution by adducing circumstantial evidence. He argues that what could only be proceeded was that the victim had died a homicidal death, and her dead body was found in the bathroom of the accused person's house. Other than that, the prosecution has not established any other circumstance to complete the chain of events, leading to the guilt of the accused persons.

The Court remarked that there is no doubt or dispute that there is no direct evidence, and the prosecution's case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. The Court chose to meticulously examine the evidence on record to decide the issue of whether the prosecution had succeeded in proving the charge. In the alternative, it was argued that even if it is held otherwise, a proper opportunity was not given to the accused to explain his stand during the examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, causing serious prejudice to the interest of his client. He argued that according to the learned counsel for the appellants unless the accused is afforded a proper opportunity to explain, it cannot be said that the accused has failed to discharge his burden under section 106 of the Evidence Act.

The Court went through the accused's statement recorded by the Sessions Judge under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court was surprised to note that not only long and bulky questions, running into several hundreds of words, were put to the accused during his examination under Section 313 of the CrPC, but even the evidence was not at all put to the accused, despite relying on it.

She referred to the case of Paramjeet Singh v. the State of Uttarakhand (2010) 10 SCC 439, where it was held that Section 313 CrPC is based on the fundamental principle of fairness. It reads,

"The attention of the accused must be specifically brought to the inculpatory piece of evidence so as to give him an opportunity to offer an explanation if he chooses to do so. Therefore, the Court would be under a legal obligation to put the incriminating circumstances to the accused and solicit his response."

The Court noted that the provision is mandatory and casts an imperative duty upon the Court and confers a corresponding right on the accused to have an opportunity to explain such incriminatory materials appearing against him.

The Court also referred to the case of Nar Singh v. the State of Haryana (2015) 1 SCC 496, where it was held that section 313 (1)(b) of CrPC aims at bringing the substance of the accusation to the accused, to enable him to explain every circumstance appearing in the evidence against him. It was also observed that whether a trial has been vitiated or not due to noncompliance with section 313 CrPC would depend on the degree of error or violation, and the accused must show that such non-compliance has materially prejudiced or is likely to cause prejudice to him.

The Court noted that if the questions put to the accused turn out to be very long and arduous, containing voluminous details, or if the same is put in the form of interrogatories, then the accused would naturally not be in a position to understand the actual incriminating circumstances available against him. In such a situation, an accused might even fail to comprehend the questions in the proper perspective to explain. In that event, the accused would undoubtedly suffer prejudice.

Therefore, it would be the trial court's duty to put the substance of all the incriminating circumstances to the accused by framing specific and separate questions on each incriminating evidence brought on record against him and allowing the accused to explain.

The Court held that while recording his statements under section 313 CrPC, we are convinced that the accused did not get a proper opportunity to respond to all the incriminating evidence available against him in a proper manner.

It noted that the trial Judge was not correct in putting such long and voluminous questions to the accused of the incriminating circumstances and hinted at the predisposition of the trial judge against the accused.

It held noncompliance to the mandatory provision under Section 313 CrPC, highlighting inherent prejudice, ultimately having a vitiating effect on the trial.

Noting that a fair trial was denied to the accused, it directed the Single Judge to reframe and put specific and separate questions to the accused on the incriminating evidence available against him.

Case Title: Gobind Singhal v. State of Assam and other connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Gau) 25

Click Here To Download The Order

Read The Order