Supreme Court Acquits Accused Due to Inadequate Examination Under Section 313 CrPC: Ashok vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) INSC 919 (02 December 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 02 December 2024

Citation: (2024) INSC 919

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J., Augustine George Masih, J.

Can a criminal conviction stand if the accused was not properly questioned about the incriminating evidence against them? The Supreme Court recently addressed this critical question in a case involving the rape and murder of a minor. The Court emphasized the importance of a thorough examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), ensuring a fair trial. This judgment highlights the necessity of putting all incriminating circumstances to the accused to allow them to explain their position, a cornerstone of criminal justice.

Case Background

On May 27, 2009, a ten-year-old girl and her seven-year-old cousin (PW-2) went to graze goats. The victim, thirsty, approached a tubewell cabin where the appellant worked as an operator. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, with malicious intent, took her inside, raped, and then murdered her. PW-2 reportedly witnessed the appellant forcibly taking the victim inside and raping her. PW-2 then informed the victim’s father (PW-1), who found the victim’s body hidden in a haystack inside the cabin. The appellant fled upon being questioned by PW-1. PW-1 subsequently registered the First Information Report (FIR).

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The case involves several key legal provisions:

• Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with the punishment for rape.
• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section addresses causing disappearance of evidence of an offence, or giving false information to screen offender.
• Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SCST Act): This section deals with offences against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
• Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section allows for the admissibility of information leading to the discovery of a fact.
• Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section mandates the examination of the accused to explain the circumstances appearing against them in the evidence.

The Court also considered Article 21 and Article 39A of the Constitution of India, which guarantee the right to life and personal liberty and provide for free legal aid, respectively.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The senior counsel for the appellant argued that there were significant discrepancies between the testimony of PW-1 (father of the victim) and PW-2 (cousin of the victim). PW-1’s initial testimony was based on what PW-2 told him, but it differed from PW-2’s direct testimony in court.
• The possibility of PW-2 being tutored was raised, as his evidence was recorded two and a half years after the incident, when he was ten years old. The appellant’s counsel argued that PW-2’s testimony was not of “sterling quality” and could not be the sole basis for conviction.
• The recovery of the victim’s slippers and underwear at the instance of the appellant was questioned due to the lack of specific details regarding the place and time of recovery in the recovery memo. The prosecution also failed to examine the two independent witnesses to the recovery memo.
• The prosecution did not prove that the blood stains on the appellant’s undergarments were of the victim’s blood.
• Most importantly, the incriminating circumstances against the appellant were not put to him during his examination under Section 313 of the CrPC, prejudicing his right to a fair defense.
• The appellant relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2023 SCC OnLine SC 609] to support his argument regarding the importance of a proper examination under Section 313 of the CrPC.

State’s Submissions:

• The learned senior counsel for the State supported the impugned judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court.
• The State assisted the Court on the issue of providing legal aid to the accused.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the evidence of PW-2, the minor witness, was reliable and of sterling quality.
2. Whether the recovery of the victim’s slippers and underwear at the instance of the appellant was valid.
3. Whether the examination of the appellant under Section 313 of the CrPC was adequate and in accordance with the law.
4. Whether the appellant’s right to legal aid was properly addressed during the trial.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

• Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2023 SCC OnLine SC 609]: This case was relied upon to emphasize the importance of a proper examination of the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC.
• Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793]: This case was cited to highlight the necessity of drawing the accused’s attention to every inculpatory material to enable them to explain it.
• Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar [(1980) 1 SCC 98]: This case was referred to emphasize the constitutional right to free legal aid.
• M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra [(1978) 3 SCC 544]: This case was cited to underscore the importance of legal services for a fair trial.
• Anokhilal v. State of M.P. [(2019) 20 SCC 196]: This case was used to reiterate the principles governing free legal aid and the standards for appointing amicus curiae.
• Bashira v. State of U.P. [(1969) 1 SCR 32]: This case was referred to highlight that the time granted to the Amicus Curiae to prepare for the defence must be sufficient.
• Ambadas Laxman Shinde v. State of Maharashtra [(2018) 18 SCC 788]: This case was cited to emphasize the need for sufficient opportunity to the counsel to prepare the matter.
• Imtiyaz Ramzan Khan v. State of Maharashtra [(2018) 9 SCC 160]: This case was referred to highlight that the Amicus Curiae must have meetings and discussion with the accused.

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

• Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with the punishment for rape.
• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section addresses causing disappearance of evidence of an offence, or giving false information to screen offender.
• Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SCST Act): This section deals with offences against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
• Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section allows for the admissibility of information leading to the discovery of a fact.
• Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section mandates the examination of the accused to explain the circumstances appearing against them in the evidence.
• Section 303 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section provides the right of the accused to be defended by a pleader of his choice.
• Section 304 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section provides for the grant of legal aid to an accused free of costs.
• Article 21 of the Constitution of India: This article guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
• Article 39A of the Constitution of India: This article provides for free legal aid.
• Sections 340 and 341 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS): These sections correspond to Sections 303 and 304 of the CrPC.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court followed Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2023 SCC OnLine SC 609]* to emphasize the necessity of putting all incriminating evidence to the accused during examination under Section 313 of the CrPC.
• The Court relied on Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793]* to highlight that the accused’s attention should be drawn to every inculpatory material.
• The Court used Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar [(1980) 1 SCC 98]* to underscore the constitutional right to free legal aid.
• The Court referred to M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra [(1978) 3 SCC 544]* to emphasize the importance of legal services for a fair trial.
• The Court applied the principles laid down in Anokhilal v. State of M.P. [(2019) 20 SCC 196]* to reiterate the standards for providing free legal aid and appointing amicus curiae.
• The Court also relied on Bashira v. State of U.P. [(1969) 1 SCR 32]*, Ambadas Laxman Shinde v. State of Maharashtra [(2018) 18 SCC 788]* and Imtiyaz Ramzan Khan v. State of Maharashtra [(2018) 9 SCC 160]* to highlight the importance of sufficient opportunity to the counsel to prepare the matter and to have meetings and discussion with the accused.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following:

• The court was deeply concerned with the inadequate examination of the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC, which it deemed a serious violation of the accused’s right to a fair trial.
• The discrepancies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly PW-1 and PW-2, raised doubts about the prosecution’s case.
• The doubtful nature of the recovery evidence, which was not properly established by the prosecution, also played a significant role.
• The failure to provide adequate legal aid to the accused at critical stages of the trial was a major concern for the court.

Fact:Law

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court, after considering the evidence and legal principles, concluded that the appellant’s conviction was unsustainable. The Court emphasized that the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC is a crucial part of a fair trial. It held that the failure to put all incriminating circumstances to the accused for explanation prejudiced his defense. The Court also noted the lack of quality legal aid provided to the accused, further undermining the fairness of the trial.

The Court noted, “It is trite law, nevertheless fundamental, that the prisoner’s attention should be drawn to every inculpatory material so as to enable him to explain it.”

The Court further observed, “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 Court also stated, “The right to get legal aid is a fundamental right of the accused, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.”

The Court stated that even if the evidence of PW-2 is believed, the appellant is entitled to acquittal on the ground of the failure to put incriminating material to him in his examination under Section 313 of the CrPC.

The Court was surprised to note that both the Trial Court and High Court had overlooked non-compliance with the requirements of Section 313 of the CrPC and that the Trial Court had imposed the death penalty in a case which ought to have resulted in acquittal.

Key Takeaways

• The examination of an accused under Section 313 of the CrPC is a critical part of a fair trial, and all incriminating circumstances must be put to the accused for explanation.
• Failure to properly examine the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC can lead to the acquittal of the accused.
• Legal aid must be provided to the accused at all material stages of the trial, and it must be of good quality.
• Public Prosecutors have a duty to ensure that trials are conducted fairly and in accordance with the law, including assisting the court in the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC.
• Trial Courts must ensure that accused persons are aware of their right to free legal aid and that they are represented by competent counsel.
• The judgment emphasizes the importance of a fair trial and the protection of the rights of the accused.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued several directions to ensure proper legal aid and fair trials:

• Courts must ensure that proper legal aid is provided to an accused.
• Public Prosecutors must point out to the Court the requirement of providing free legal aid when an accused is not represented.
• Public Prosecutors must assist the Trial Court in recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC and bring to the notice of the Court any material circumstance omitted.
• Accused persons are entitled to free legal aid at all material stages, including remand and bail petitions.
• Courts must make accused persons aware of their right to free legal aid.
• Only advocates with a minimum of ten years of practice on the criminal side should be considered for appointment as amicus curiae or legal aid advocates in cases where there is a possibility of a life sentence or death sentence.
• Legal Services Authorities must monitor the work of legal aid advocates and ensure their regular attendance in court.
• The same legal aid advocate should be continued throughout the trial unless there are compelling reasons to do so.
• In serious and complicated cases, the Court may appoint a senior member of the Bar to espouse the cause of the accused.
• Legal aid must be effective, and advocates appointed must have good knowledge of criminal laws, law of evidence, and procedural laws.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the failure to adequately examine an accused under Section 313 of the CrPC, by not putting all incriminating circumstances to the accused, coupled with the lack of proper legal aid, can result in the acquittal of the accused. This judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to fair trial procedures and ensuring that the accused has a proper opportunity to defend themselves, which is a fundamental aspect of criminal jurisprudence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant in the case of Ashok vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) INSC 919, emphasizing that the examination of an accused under Section 313 of the CrPC is a crucial part of a fair trial. The Court found that the appellant’s examination under Section 313 of the CrPC was inadequate as all incriminating circumstances were not put to the appellant for explanation, prejudicing his defense. The Court also noted that the appellant was not provided with proper legal aid at all material stages of the trial. The judgment underscores the importance of ensuring that all accused persons are given a fair opportunity to defend themselves and that their rights are protected throughout the trial process. The judgment also highlights that the Public Prosecutors and Trial Courts have a duty to ensure that trials are conducted fairly and in accordance with the law.