Supreme Court acquits accused due to flawed Section 313 CrPC examination in NDPS case (24 November 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 24 November 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 1020

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Pankaj Mithal, J.

Can a conviction be upheld if the accused is not specifically questioned about key evidence against them during their examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The Court acquitted an accused, emphasizing the importance of a fair trial where all incriminating evidence is presented to the accused for explanation. This judgment highlights the crucial role of Section 313 of CrPC in ensuring justice.

Case Background

The case revolves around the arrest of three individuals, including the appellant, Nababuddin, for allegedly possessing 205 kilograms of poppy straw without a license, an offense under Section 15 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution’s case was that the accused were found in conscious possession of the contraband. The Special Judge convicted all three accused, and the High Court confirmed the conviction.

On May 22, 2001, police received information about contraband parcels at Ambala Cantonment railway station, destined for Kurail Railway Station. The parcels were inspected, and ten bags of poppy straw were found. On May 28, 2001, police visited Kurail railway station. Accused no. 2, Rahish, approached the station supervisor with a railway receipt inquiring about the parcels. Later, the appellant, Nababuddin, also inquired about the same parcels. Both were arrested. Accused no. 1 was arrested on May 31, 2001, at Ambala Cantt. railway station for allegedly booking the parcels.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Special Court convicted the appellant and two other accused under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, holding them guilty of conscious possession of poppy straw. The High Court upheld this conviction. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision in this case is Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which penalizes the possession of poppy straw without a license or permit. The court also considered Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which mandates that the accused be examined on the circumstances appearing in the evidence against them.

Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 states:

“(1) In every inquiry or trial, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court—
(a) may, at any stage, without previously warning the accused, put such questions to him as the Court considers necessary;
(b) shall, after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before the accused is called on for his defence, question him generally on the case:
Provided that in a summons-case, where the Court has dispensed with the personal attendance of the accused, it may also dispense with his examination under clause (b).
(2) No oath shall be administered to the accused when he is examined under sub-section (1).
(3) The accused shall not render himself liable to punishment by refusing to answer such questions, or by giving false answers to them.
(4) The answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial, and put in evidence for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence which such answers may tend to show he has committed.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that he was a rickshaw puller, like accused no. 2.
• Accused no. 2 had gone to inquire about the parcels on behalf of the owner, and when he didn’t return, the appellant went to inquire about him.
• The railway receipt was not produced by the appellant but by accused no. 2.
• The prosecution’s claim that the railway receipt was in the appellant’s name was not put to him during his examination under Section 313 of the CrPC.
• The allegation that the appellant approached the station supervisor to inquire about the parcel was also not put to the appellant in his examination under Section 313 of CrPC.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The respondent argued that the material circumstances were put to the appellant in questions 7 and 15 of his examination under Section 313 of CrPC.
• The railway receipts were in the name of the appellant (as Abhimanyu).
• The appellant’s visit to the railway station with accused no. 2 to inquire about the parcels showed his involvement and constructive possession of the contraband.
• There was no reason to fault the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the conviction of the appellant could be sustained when material circumstances were not put to him during his examination under Section 313 of the CrPC.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authority:

¹ 2023 SCC online SC 609

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2023 SCC online SC 609]: The Court used this authority to emphasize the importance of examining the accused under Section 313 of CrPC, stating that each material circumstance must be put to the accused.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the procedural lapse in the examination of the appellant under Section 313 of the CrPC. The Court emphasized that it is the duty of the trial court to put each material circumstance appearing in the evidence against the accused specifically, distinctively, and separately. The failure to do so, especially when the circumstances are crucial to the prosecution’s case, can cause serious prejudice to the accused.

The Court noted that the two main incriminating circumstances against the appellant—that the railway receipt was in his name and that he inquired about the parcels—were not properly presented to him during his examination under Section 313 of the CrPC. This omission was considered a serious irregularity that vitiated the trial.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that the railway receipt was in the appellant’s name, but noted that this was not properly put to him during his examination. The Court also considered the fact that the appellant had been incarcerated for five and a half years and that subjecting him to further examination after more than twenty-two years would be unjust. The Court rejected the argument that the omission was a curable defect, given the passage of time and the prejudice caused to the appellant.

The Court’s reasoning emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and the accused’s right to a fair trial. The Court held that the failure to put material circumstances to the accused during their examination under Section 313 of the CrPC is a serious irregularity that can vitiate the trial. The Court also noted that the appellant’s explanation of his presence at the railway station was not properly considered.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “It is the duty of the Trial Court to put each material circumstance appearing in the evidence against the accused specifically, distinctively and separately.”
• “The object of examination of the accused under Section 313 is to enable the accused to explain any circumstance appearing against him in the evidence.”
• “The failure to put material circumstances to the accused amounts to a serious irregularity. It will vitiate the trial if it is shown to have prejudiced the accused.”

The Court did not express any minority opinion in this case.

Key Takeaways

• The examination of the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC is a critical part of the trial process.
• All material circumstances appearing in the evidence against the accused must be specifically and separately put to them during this examination.
• Failure to do so can lead to the quashing of the conviction if it is shown to have prejudiced the accused.
• The passage of time is a factor to be considered when deciding whether a procedural defect is curable.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the impugned judgments of the Trial Court and High Court be set aside only in so far as the present appellant is concerned. The conviction of the other two accused was not disturbed. The appellant was acquitted of the offence alleged against him, and his bail bonds were cancelled.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction cannot be sustained if material circumstances are not put to the accused during their examination under Section 313 of the CrPC. This judgment reinforces the importance of procedural fairness and the accused’s right to a fair trial. The Supreme Court has reiterated the law laid down in Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), emphasizing the duty of the trial court to ensure that the accused is given a fair opportunity to explain the circumstances against them.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision to acquit Nababuddin highlights the critical importance of adhering to procedural safeguards in criminal trials. The Court’s emphasis on the necessity of a thorough examination under Section 313 of the CrPC underscores the accused’s right to a fair opportunity to explain the evidence against them. This judgment serves as a reminder to trial courts to meticulously follow the prescribed procedures to ensure that justice is not only done but also seen to be done.

Category

Parent Category: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Child Category: Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Parent Category: Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Child Category: Section 15, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Category: Criminal Procedure

FAQ

Q: What is Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?

A: Section 313 of the CrPC mandates that the accused be examined on the circumstances appearing in the evidence against them. This allows the accused to explain their side of the story and is a crucial part of a fair trial.

Q: What happens if the court fails to question the accused on material evidence under Section 313 CrPC?

A: If the court fails to put material circumstances to the accused during their examination under Section 313 of CrPC, it can lead to the quashing of the conviction, especially if it is shown to have prejudiced the accused.

Q: What was the main reason for the Supreme Court’s decision in this case?

A: The Supreme Court acquitted the accused because the trial court failed to put the material circumstances against him, specifically that the railway receipt was in his name and that he inquired about the parcels, during his examination under Section 313 of CrPC.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment?

A: This judgment underscores the importance of procedural fairness in criminal trials and the accused’s right to a fair opportunity to explain the evidence against them. It highlights the critical role of Section 313 of CrPC in ensuring justice.

Q: Can a conviction be upheld if the accused is not specifically questioned about key evidence against them during their examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)?

A: No, a conviction cannot be upheld if the accused is not specifically questioned about key evidence against them during their examination under Section 313 of the CrPC. The Supreme Court has emphasized that all material circumstances must be put to the accused for explanation.