S.313 CrPC | Non-Questioning On Incriminating Circumstances Vitiates Trial If It Resulted In Material Prejudice To Accused :Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday (July 8) held that the non-questioning of an accused on 'incriminating circumstances' and depriving him of an opportunity to explain the incriminating circumstances under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("CrPC") would vitiate the trial if such omission result in a miscarriage of justice. The Court said that non-adherence to the provision of Section 313 of CrPC would result in an acquittal of the accused if it prejudices the accused.

The bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Sandeep Mehta acquitted the murder accused in a 29 years old case wherein the accused was neither questioned by the trial court on an incriminating circumstance nor provided an opportunity to explain the incriminating circumstances posed by the prosecution.

“when the finding of common intention was based on the twin incriminating circumstances and when they were not put to the appellant while he was being questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C, and when they ultimately culminated in his conviction under Section 302, IPC, with the aid of Section 34, IPC, and when he was awarded with the life imprisonment consequently, it can only be held that the appellant was materially prejudiced and it had resulted in blatant miscarriage of justice. The failure as above is not a curable defect and it is nothing but a patent illegality vitiating the trial qua the appellant.”, the Judgment authored by Justice CT Ravikumar said.

Section 313 of Cr. P.C. is one of the beneficial provisions from the perspective of the accused which provides an opportunity to an accused to put his defence against the incriminating circumstances posed by the prosecution against the accused. The general position is that if any incriminating circumstance, appearing against an accused in the prosecution evidence, is not put to him it should not be used against him and must be excluded from consideration.

Drawing reference from its precedents, the Court observed that it is a well-neigh settled position that non-examination or inadequate examination under Section 313, Cr.P.C., on any incriminating circumstance, by itself, would not vitiate a trial qua the convict concerned unless it has resulted in material prejudice to him or in miscarriage of justice.

In the present case, the non-questioning of an accused on the incriminating circumstances by the trial court didn't provide a fair chance for the accused to submit an explanation against such incriminating circumstances posed against the accused. The error committed by a trial court in not abiding by the provisions of Section 313 of CrPC resulted in a miscarriage of justice for the accused as he was sentenced to life imprisonment after finding him guilty of offence of murder.

The Court clarified that a plea regarding non-questioning/non-examining of an accused under Section 313 of CrPC can be directly raised at the Supreme Court subject to the condition that the prejudice has been caused to the accused.

“Being the Court existing for dispensation of justice, this Court is bound to consider and correct the mistake committed by the Court by looking into the question whether nonexamination or inadequate examination of accused concerned caused material prejudice or miscarriage of justice.”, the Court observed

The Court also referred to its judgment of Raj Kumar @ Suman v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 434, wherein the Court lamented the trial court judges for not using Section 313(5) of CrPC in proper manner by not taking assistance of the public prosecutors and defence counsel in preparing a question to be put to an accused on incriminating circumstances. The Court in Raj Kumar's Case summarized the law on the subject of a consequence of omission to make questioning on incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence and the ways of curing the same.

After finding that the accused was not provided sufficient opportunity to present his version of the case under Section 313 of CrPC, the Court said that asking the trial court to record his Section 313 statement would further prejudice him since the case was 29 years old. Therefore, keeping in view of the fact that the accused has already undergone incarceration for more than 12 years, the court held that the conviction of the appellant could not be sustained.

The appeal was allowed accordingly, and the appellant/accused was acquitted of the charges of murder given the error committed by the trial court in not questioning the accused about the incriminating circumstances under Section 313 of CrPC.

Counsels For Appellant(s) Mr. S. D. Singh, Adv. Ms. Bharti Tyagi, AOR Ms. Shweta Sinha, Adv. Mr. Ram Kripal Singh, Adv. Mr. Dhiraj Kumar, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Singh, Adv.

Counsels For Respondent(s) Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv. Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Adv. Ms. Noor Rampal, Adv. Mr. Shantnu Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Adv.

Case Title: Naresh Kumar Versus State of Delhi, Criminal Appeal No.: 1751 of 2017

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 443

Click here to read/download the Judgment