In Chandan Pasi & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N K Singh delivered a 11-page long judgement dated December 1, 2025, wherein, it concluded:"... we need not delve into the other grounds raised, questioning the concurrent conviction against the appellants herein. On this ground alone, the Appeals are allowed and the matter is sent back to the concerned Trial Court to recommence from the state of the recording of the Section 313 CrPC statements. We may clarify that the remand is limited to the cases of the three appellants before us and our observations herein shall not affect the sanctity of the findings already arrived at, qua the other accused persons. A trial is a function of memory; it is this memory that, when translated into spoken word testimony on oath, becomes evidence, and thus the same is susceptible to the vagaries of time. Keeping in view the fact that the offence is from the year 2016, and while being cognizant of the observations of the Constitution Bench in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P. 11, we direct the concerned Trial Court to do the needful within four months from the date of the communication of this judgment."
It added:"Registrar (Judicial) to communicate this judgment and jorder to the learned Registrar General, High Court of Judicature Patna, who will forthwith communicate the same to the concerned court for necessary action and compliance."
The appeals arose from the final judgments and orders dated 4th September, 2024 and 26th September, 2024 passed by Patna High Court in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.443 of 2017, which affirmed the judgment of conviction dated 27th March 2017 and the order of sentence dated 29th March 2017 passed by the Court of District & Session Judge, Buxar in Sessions Trial No.256 of 2016, whereby a total of six persons were sentenced to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- each under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, one year simple imprisonment each under Sections 448 & 323 along with Section 34 IPC with all of them running concurrently. Before the Supreme Court three of the six convicts namely – Chandan Pasi, Pappu Pasi and Gidik Pasi. Here only it may be noted that there was a seventh accused person who was, by the process of law held to be a juvenile and thus dealt with in accordance with the applicable law.
The matter has been listed under the caption ‘To Be
Mentioned’ for rectification of Uploading date and Transmission
date appearing in the prescribed column at the bottom of the last
page of the judgment, which has been recorded as ‘11.08.2024’,
whereas the same ought to have been ‘11.09.2024’.
The same is corrected. The date be read as
11.09.2024.
The factual background is that on 31st March 2016, the informant Kachan Pasi along with his father Ghughali Pasi, mother Kouta Devi and sister-in-law Dharmsheela Devi were returning from the fields of one Nanhaku Singh when the accused persons surrounded the above-named and assaulted Ghughali Pasi with a katta, who died as a result thereof. Particular allegations of such assault were also levelled against Joni Pasi @Ravindra Pasi.
The Trial Court had convicted. All the accused persons before the Trial Court filed appeals under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 19733 in which the High Court upheld the findings of the Court below.
Ms. Anjana Prakash was the Senior Counsel for the appellants.
A perusal of the Special Leave Petition reveals that amongst other grounds, the primary contention rests on the noncompliance of Section 313, CrPC. This Court had indicated in the order issuing notice that, should the ground of proper compliance be made out, only then, we would proceed to examine other grounds.
One of the non-negotiable requirements of a fair trial is
that the accused persons should have ample opportunity to dispel the case and claims of the prosecution against them. This
ample opportunity can take many forms, whether it is adequate
representation through counsel or the opportunity to call
witnesses to present their side of the case or to have the
occasion to answer each and every allegation against them, on
their own, in their own words. The last one happens under
Section 313 CrPC.
7.
This Court, in many judgments, delineated the scope and
object of Section 313 CrPC. The position is no longer up for
debate. Even so, we may refer to certain pronouncements for
the sake of completeness.
No comments:
Post a Comment