Section 313 CrPC Is A Safeguard In The Trial Process, Court Must Present Each Material Circumstance Separately To Accused: J&K High Court

“The purpose of putting material evidence distinctively and separately to the accused is to enable the accused to tender his explanation and if the incriminating evidence is not put in the manner aforesaid, then it amounts to condemning the accused unheard”, the bench comprising Justice Rajnesh Oswal observed.

The case originated from an incident leading to the conviction of Ashok Kumar for offences under sections 279, 338, and 304-A of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC). The Judicial Magistrate Akhnoor, convicted Kumar and sentenced him to various terms of simple imprisonment and fines for these offences on May 15, 2013.

Kumar's appeal against this judgment was subsequently dismissed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu, on August 4, 2014, prompting him to file a revision petition before the High Court.

Ashok Kumar's counsel, Mr. G. S. Thakur, argued that the trial court failed to put the incriminating evidence to the petitioner in accordance with Section 313 of CrPC, thereby depriving him of the opportunity to explain or rebut the evidence. He cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 to bolster his argument.

On the other hand, the State, represented by Mr. P. D. Singh, Deputy Advocate General, maintained that the trial and appellate courts had rightly appreciated the evidence and upheld the conviction.

Observations Of The Court:

Justice Oswal meticulously examined the trial records and found that the trial court had indeed put the statements of all witnesses to the accused in one line, a practice condemned by the Supreme Court in various judgments.

“.. this Court finds that the learned trial court recorded the statement of the petitioner on 19.02.2013 and the statements of all the witnesses were put to him in one line only, the practice which has been deprecated by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court”, the bench remarked.

Underscoring the essence of Section 313 CrPC, Justice Oswal highlighted its role as a safeguard that ensures a direct dialogue between the court and the accused as it mandates that the court must question the accused specifically and distinctly about each material circumstance appearing in the evidence against him.

Referring Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 & Premchand v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 the bench strenuously emphasised the necessity of direct and clear questioning of the accused to enable him to explain any incriminating evidence.

Concluding that both the trial and appellate courts had erred in their judgments by not adhering to the mandated procedure under Section 313 CrPC the court set aside the judgments of both courts and remanded the case back to the trial court with directions to comply with the legal requirements.

Case Title: Ashok Kumar Vs State.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 120

Mr. G. S. Thakur, Adv represented the petitioner, Mr. P. D. Singh, Dy.AG appeared for respondents.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment