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."
On earlier occasions also, Supreme Court, while upholding the acquittal of an accused, had observed that High Courts must be proactive while checking compliance with Section 313 of Cr.PC (Section 351 of BNSS) at the inception of criminal appeals and remand the matter to the trial court in case of lapses, to avoid acquittals.
In the case of Chandan Pasi, the Court was astounded to note that the statements given by all three accused persons were carbon copies of each other. The Court was unable to understand how such statements passed muster at the hands of the Trial Judge. On this ground alone, the Bench allowed the Appeals and sent the matter back to the 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”.
Justice Karol headed bench ordered the Trial Court to recommence the recording of the Section 313 CrPC statements in a criminal case, after finding that statements given by three accused persons were photo copies of each other. The Supreme Court also held that the prosecutor is an officer of the Court and cannot act as a defence lawyer.
The Court also mentioned that 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.
The appeals before the Court arose from the final judgments and orders by Justices Vipul M. Pancholi and R. C. Malviya of the High Court affirming the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence in a murder case. A total of six persons were sentenced to life imprisonment. Three of them had approached the Supreme Court.
The appeals emerged 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 had 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.
Justice Pancholi headed Division Bench of the High Court had passed an order dated September 26, 2024. It wrote:"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."
It had passed a 34-page long judgement in Joni Pasi @ Ravindra Pasi vs. The State of Bihar (2024), the High Court had delivered a judgement dated September 4, 2024 as well. It was head along with Birendra Pasi & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar (2024). The other 4 respondents were: Chandan Pasi, Pappu Pasi @ Hindustan Pasi, Botal Pasi and Gidik Pasi.
Justice Pancholi had observed:"It is true that the prosecution has failed to examine independent witnesses. However, merely because such witnesses have not been examined, the version given by the prosecution witnesses cannot be discarded. It is well settled that the deposition given by the interested or the related witnesses cannot be discarded only on the ground that they are the interested witnesses. Their deposition is to be examined closely. If the deposition given by such witnesses is found trustworthy, reliable and plausible, conviction can be recorded on the basis of the deposition given by such witnesses, who are eyewitnesses to the incident in question. In the present case, PW’s 6, 7 and 9 are the near relatives of the deceased. However, their presence at the place of occurrence was natural. Even, in the present case, as observed jereinabove, the medical evidence also supports the version given by the said eyewitnesses. The prosecution has even proved the motive on the part of the appellants-accused to commit the alleged crime, i.e., both the accused side and the prosecution side were on inimical terms for very long and a girl of accused side was kidnapped by the prosecution side. Thus, in the present case, merely because the independent witnesses have not been examined, the version of the prosecution is not required to be discarded."
He recorded:"Learned senior counsel for the appellant has also contended that the police station case number has not been mentioned in the inquest report as well as in the postmortem report. However, it is required to be observed that inquest report was prepared at the place of incident at 08:45 AM and, at that time, formal FIR was not registered. Further, from the deposition of PW 3 (Investigating Officer), it is also revealed that he had sent the dead body for postmortem examination from the place of incident itself and, therefore, there are all chances that police station case number has not been mentioned even in the postmortem report. Even otherwise, formal FIR was registered at 01:45 PM (13:45 hours) and, as per the postmortem report (ext.-1), the dead body was received at 2:00 PM. Thus, merely because the police station case number has not been written in the postmortem report, it cannot be said that the case of the prosecution itself is doubtful. Even the defence raised by the appellants-accused before the trial court is also not required to be believed in view of the evidence produced by the prosecution. We have also gone through the reasoning recorded by the trial court and we are of the view that the trial court has not committed any error while passing the impugned judgment and order."
He concluded:"Accordingly, both these appeals stand dismissed. 23.Since all the five appellants of Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 443 of 2017 are on bail, their bail bonds are hereby cancelled. The trial court is directed to take immediate steps for sending them to jail custody for serving the remaining sentence." Supreme Court has reversed this inference by Justice Pancholi.
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, who is a former judge of the Patna High Court. h
The primary contention in the SLPs rested on the noncompliance of Section 313, CrPC. The Supreme 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.
Justice Karol observed: '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. 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."
He observed: “It is equally disturbing for us to see that in the desire to secure a conviction for the accused persons, the prosecutor also let their duty of assisting the Court in conducting the examination of the accused under this section fall by the wayside. The prosecutor is an officer of the Court and holds a solemn duty to act in the interest of justice. They cannot act as a defence lawyer, but for the State, with the sole aim of making the gauntlet of punishment fall on the accused.”
He noted that the primary contention in the Special Leave Petition was based on the noncompliance of Section 313, CrPC. The Court explained that the accused persons should have ample opportunity to dispel the case and claims of the prosecution against them. He underlined: “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”.
Under Section 351 of BNSS or Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, it is mandatory for the court to question the accused generally on the case after the prosecution evidence has been presented. This provision is crucial for ensuring that the accused has an opportunity to explain the evidence against them. The absence of such questioning can have adverse implications on the trial.
Section 351 of BNSS or Section 313 of the CrPC allows the court to directly question the accused to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against them. The provision is intended to:
-Ensure the accused understands the allegations and evidence against them.
-Provide the accused an opportunity to explain or rebut the evidence.
-Assist the court in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused.
Section 313 is a mandatory provision. It ensures that the principles of natural justice are upheld by giving the accused a chance to respond to the evidence presented by the prosecution.
If the court fails to put relevant questions to the accused under Section 313, it can lead to a miscarriage of justice. The necessity to question the accused under Section 313 CrPC is fundamental to a fair trial.
No comments:
Post a Comment