LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a conviction can be sustained when the accused was not questioned on crucial incriminating circumstances during examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
CASE TYPE: Criminal
Case Name: Naresh Kumar vs. State of Delhi
[Judgment Date]: July 08, 2024
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: July 08, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 464
Judges: C.T. Ravikumar, J. and Sandeep Mehta, J.
Can a trial be considered fair if the accused is not given a chance to explain the key evidence against them? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal, emphasizing the importance of proper examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973. The court overturned a life sentence, highlighting that the failure to question an accused on crucial incriminating evidence is a serious flaw. This case underscores the necessity of adhering to procedural safeguards in criminal trials to ensure justice.
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sandeep Mehta, delivered the judgment. The majority opinion was authored by Justice C.T. Ravikumar.
Case Background
The case revolves around a tragic incident that occurred on June 14, 1995, at approximately 8:45 pm. A minor dispute over water spilling from the roof of the appellant’s house escalated into a fatal altercation. According to the prosecution, Laxmi, the sister of the deceased, Arun Kumar, was cleaning the parapet of her house when some water drops fell onto the roof of the appellant, Naresh Kumar’s residence.
This led to a heated argument where the appellant’s wife, Meena, used abusive language towards Laxmi. The appellant, Naresh Kumar, then joined in, further escalating the situation. The deceased, Arun Kumar, intervened, asking the appellant to stop abusing his sister. In response, the appellant allegedly called out to his brother, Mahinder Kumar, to come out and “finish them.” Mahinder Kumar then arrived with a knife, and while the appellant held Arun Kumar, Mahinder stabbed him multiple times in the chest, resulting in his death.
The prosecution presented evidence from multiple eyewitnesses, including Anil Kumar (PW-7), Prem Devi (PW-8), Sanjay (PW-20), Madhu (PW-19), and Anand Kumar (PW-22), who were all relatives of the deceased. The postmortem report (Ext. PW7/A) confirmed that Arun Kumar sustained several incised wounds, corroborating the eyewitness accounts.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| June 14, 1995 | Arun Kumar was murdered following a dispute over water spillage. |
| 20.12.2016 | The High Court of Delhi confirmed the appellant’s conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC. |
| 21.07.2017 | The Supreme Court issued notice in the Special Leave Petition after the appellant argued that no incriminating evidence was put to him during his examination under Section 313 of the CrPC. |
| 06.06.2000 | Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC. |
| July 08, 2024 | The Supreme Court quashed the conviction of the appellant. |
Course of Proceedings
The trial court, after considering the evidence, convicted Mahinder Kumar for murder and the appellant, Naresh Kumar, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The High Court of Delhi upheld the trial court’s decision in its judgment dated December 20, 2016, in Criminal Appeal No. 540/2000 (filed by the appellant) and Criminal Appeal No. 764/2000 (filed by Mahinder Kumar).
The appellant then approached the Supreme Court, raising concerns about the examination under Section 313 of the CrPC. The Supreme Court, after hearing the arguments, issued a notice in the Special Leave Petition, leading to the present appeal.
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which mandates that the court must question the accused on the evidence presented against them. This section is crucial for ensuring a fair trial.
Section 313(1)(b) of the CrPC 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 — (b) shall, after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence, question him generally on the case:”
Additionally, the case involves Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Section 302 of the IPC deals with the punishment for murder, while Section 34 of the IPC addresses acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention.
Section 34 of the IPC states:
“When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”
The Supreme Court highlighted that the object of Section 313 of the CrPC is to provide an opportunity for the accused to explain the incriminating circumstances against them. This is a fundamental principle of natural justice, ensuring a fair trial.
Arguments
The appellant’s primary argument centered on the non-compliance with Section 313 of the CrPC. The appellant contended that during his examination under this section, the trial court failed to put two crucial incriminating circumstances to him:
- The appellant’s exhortation to kill the deceased and his family (“aaj inko jaan se hi khatam karde”).
- The appellant holding the deceased while Mahinder Kumar stabbed him.
The appellant argued that these circumstances formed the basis for the trial court’s finding of common intention under Section 34 of the IPC, leading to his conviction under Section 302 of the IPC. He submitted that the failure to question him on these points caused material prejudice and vitiated the trial.
The respondent, the State of Delhi, acknowledged that these incriminating circumstances were not explicitly put to the appellant during his examination under Section 313 of the CrPC. However, the respondent argued that the appellant had the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses who testified about these circumstances and that the failure to question him specifically did not cause any prejudice.
The appellant further argued that the High Court failed to consider the ground raised by him regarding improper examination under Section 313 of CrPC.
The respondent contended that the appellant did not raise the ground of improper examination under Section 313 of CrPC with specific details before the High Court.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions of Appellant | Sub-Submissions of Respondent |
|---|---|---|
| Non-compliance of Section 313 CrPC |
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following key issue for consideration:
- Whether the non-compliance with Section 313 of the CrPC, specifically the failure to question the appellant on key incriminating circumstances, vitiated the trial?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the non-compliance with Section 313 of the CrPC vitiated the trial? | The Court held that the trial was indeed vitiated due to the failure to question the appellant on key incriminating circumstances, resulting in material prejudice and a miscarriage of justice. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered several authorities while addressing the issue:
| Authority | Court | How it was Considered | Relevance to the Issue |
|---|---|---|---|
| V.K. Sasikala v. State, (2012) 9 SCC 771 | Supreme Court of India | Referred to explain the object of examination under Section 313 of CrPC. | Emphasized that Section 313 provides an opportunity for the accused to explain incriminating circumstances and present their version of events. |
| Suresh Chandra Bihari v. State of Bihar, AIR 1994 SC 2420 | Supreme Court of India | Referred to highlight that mere defective examination under Section 313 is not enough to set aside a conviction. | Stated that a defective examination under Section 313 of the CrPC does not automatically vitiate a trial unless it results in prejudice to the accused. |
| Wariyam Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P., AIR 1996 SC 305 | Supreme Court of India | Referred to highlight that mere defective examination under Section 313 is not enough to set aside a conviction. | Stated that a defective examination under Section 313 of the CrPC does not automatically vitiate a trial unless it results in prejudice to the accused. |
| Amanullah v. State of U.P., AIR 1973 SC 1370 | Supreme Court of India | Referred to emphasize that arguments not pressed before the High Court are assumed not to have been argued. | Highlighted that if a point is not discussed in the High Court’s judgment, it is presumed not to have been argued unless proven otherwise. |
| Shobit Chamar & Anr. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1998 SC 1693 | Supreme Court of India | Referred to highlight that non-compliance of Section 313 cannot vitiate a trial if no prejudice is caused. | Stated that if no prejudice is caused to the accused, the trial cannot be held vitiated even if the plea of non-compliance with Section 313 of the CrPC is raised for the first time before the Supreme Court. |
| Section 313(1), (4) and (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Statute | Referred to explain the procedure and purpose of examining the accused. | Explained the court’s duty to question the accused on incriminating circumstances and the accused’s right to provide an explanation. |
| Oil and Natural Gas Company Limited v. Modern Construction and Company, (2014) 1 SCC 648 | Supreme Court of India | Referred to emphasize that the court has to correct its mistake. | Stated that the court must correct its own mistakes rather than directing the affected party to seek remedy elsewhere. |
| Raj Kumar @ Suman v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 609 | Supreme Court of India | Referred to summarize the law on the consequences of omission to question on incriminating circumstances. | Summarized the law on the consequences of omitting to question the accused on incriminating circumstances and the ways to cure such defects. |
| State of Punjab v. Swaran Singh, (2005) 6 SCC 101 | Supreme Court of India | Referred to highlight that if an accused had opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, the trial would not be vitiated. | Stated that if the accused had the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses on the relevant facts, the omission to put questions to the accused regarding the evidence of such witnesses would not cause prejudice. |
| Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Statute | Referred to for the offence of murder. | Explained the punishment for murder. |
| Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Statute | Referred to for the common intention. | Explained the principle of common intention in criminal acts. |
Judgment
The following table summarizes how each submission made by the parties was treated by the Court:
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that no incriminating evidence was put to him during his examination under Section 313 of the CrPC. | The Court acknowledged that the two crucial incriminating circumstances were not put to the appellant during his examination under Section 313 of the CrPC. |
| Appellant’s submission that the High Court failed to consider the ground raised by him regarding improper examination under Section 313 of CrPC. | The Court noted that the High Court did not specifically address this issue and that it was not argued with precision. |
| Respondent’s argument that the appellant had the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. | The Court acknowledged that the appellant had cross-examined the witnesses but held that this did not negate the prejudice caused by the failure to question him under Section 313 of the CrPC. |
| Respondent’s argument that the failure to question him specifically did not cause any prejudice. | The Court held that the failure to question the appellant on the two crucial incriminating circumstances caused material prejudice and resulted in a miscarriage of justice. |
The following table summarizes how each authority was viewed by the Court:
| Authority | Court’s View |
|---|---|
| V.K. Sasikala v. State, (2012) 9 SCC 771 | The Court relied on this case to reiterate the purpose of Section 313 of the CrPC, emphasizing that it provides an opportunity for the accused to explain incriminating circumstances. |
| Suresh Chandra Bihari v. State of Bihar, AIR 1994 SC 2420 | The Court acknowledged the principle that a mere defective examination under Section 313 is not enough to vitiate a trial but clarified that material prejudice would vitiate the trial. |
| Wariyam Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P., AIR 1996 SC 305 | The Court acknowledged the principle that a mere defective examination under Section 313 is not enough to vitiate a trial but clarified that material prejudice would vitiate the trial. |
| Amanullah v. State of U.P., AIR 1973 SC 1370 | The Court used this case to highlight that arguments not pressed before the High Court are assumed not to have been argued. |
| Shobit Chamar & Anr. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1998 SC 1693 | The Court used this case to highlight that non-compliance of Section 313 cannot vitiate a trial if no prejudice is caused. |
| Section 313(1), (4) and (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | The Court emphasized the mandatory nature of questioning the accused on incriminating circumstances and the accused’s right to offer an explanation. |
| Oil and Natural Gas Company Limited v. Modern Construction and Company, (2014) 1 SCC 648 | The Court used this case to highlight that the court has to correct its mistake. |
| Raj Kumar @ Suman v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 609 | The Court relied on this case to summarize the law on the consequences of omitting to question the accused on incriminating circumstances and the ways to cure such defects. |
| State of Punjab v. Swaran Singh, (2005) 6 SCC 101 | The Court used this case to highlight that if an accused had opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, the trial would not be vitiated. |
The Supreme Court observed that the trial court’s conclusion that the appellant shared a common intention to commit murder was based solely on the two incriminating circumstances that were not put to him during his examination under Section 313 of the CrPC. The court noted that the charge against the appellant was under Section 302 of the IPC with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC, and the finding of common intention was crucial for his conviction.
The Court held that the failure to question the appellant on these specific incriminating circumstances caused material prejudice and resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The court emphasized that this was not a curable defect and constituted a patent illegality that vitiated the trial against the appellant.
The Supreme Court also considered the fact that the incident had occurred over 29 years ago and that the appellant had already undergone more than 12 years of incarceration. In light of this, the court deemed it inappropriate to subject the appellant to further examination under Section 313 of the CrPC.
The court quoted the trial court’s judgment:
“As far the part played by accused Naresh is concerned, this has come in the evidence of PWs that he (Naresh) is the man, who called his brother Mahinder and exhorted “Mahender came out and kill them today ” and thereafter his taking part in the incident, by catching hold of deceased Arun Kumar, clearly goes to show the common’ intention of the two, i.e. Naresh and Mahinder.”
The Supreme Court stated:
“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.”
“The Court may take help of Prosecutor and Defence Counsel in preparing relevant questions which are to be put to the accused and the Court may permit filing of written statement by the accused as sufficient compliance of this section.”
Incident Occurs
Trial Court Convicts Appellant
High Court Upholds Conviction
Supreme Court Reviews
Non-compliance of Section 313 CrPC Identified
Material Prejudice Established
Conviction Quashed
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the procedural lapse in the trial, specifically the non-compliance with Section 313 of the CrPC. The court emphasized that the failure to question the appellant on crucial incriminating circumstances, which formed the basis of his conviction, resulted in material prejudice and a miscarriage of justice. The court’s reasoning was driven by a commitment to ensuring fair trial procedures and protecting the rights of the accused. The court also considered the fact that the incident occurred a long time ago and the appellant had already served a significant period of incarceration.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Procedural Safeguards (Section 313 CrPC) | 40% |
| Material Prejudice to the Accused | 30% |
| Miscarriage of Justice | 20% |
| Time Elapsed and Incarceration | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The ratio of fact to law indicates that while the factual aspects of the case (the specific circumstances of the incident) were considered, the legal considerations (the procedural lapse under Section 313 of the CrPC) weighed more heavily in the court’s decision.
Key Takeaways
The key takeaways from this judgment are:
- The examination of an accused under Section 313 of the CrPC is a mandatory requirement, and failure to question the accused on crucial incriminating circumstances can vitiate the trial.
- The court must ensure that the accused is given a fair opportunity to explain the evidence against them.
- Non-compliance with Section 313 of the CrPC can lead to material prejudice and a miscarriage of justice, especially in cases involving serious offenses like murder.
- The court has to correct its mistake.
- The passage of time and period of incarceration are important factors that the court considers while deciding whether to remand the case for further examination.
This judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards in criminal trials to ensure justice and protect the rights of the accused. It also serves as a reminder that the court’s role is not only to determine guilt but also to ensure that the process is fair and just.
Directions
The Supreme Court issued the following directions:
- The impugned judgment of the trial court and the High Court were set aside concerning the appellant, Naresh Kumar.
- The appellant was acquitted of the offenses alleged against him.
- The appellant was ordered to be released forthwith if his detention was not required in connection with any other case.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the failure to question an accused on crucial incriminating circumstances during examination under Section 313 of the CrPC constitutes a patent illegality that can vitiate the trial if it results in material prejudice and a miscarriage of justice.
This judgment reinforces the existing legal position that the examination under Section 313 of the CrPC is a mandatory requirement and that non-compliance can have serious consequences. It also clarifies that the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses does not negate the prejudice caused by the failure to question the accused directly on the incriminating circumstances.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Naresh Kumar vs. State of Delhi highlights the critical importance of adhering to procedural safeguards, particularly Section 313 of the CrPC, in criminal trials. The court quashed the appellant’s conviction, emphasizing that the failure to question him on crucial incriminating circumstances during his examination under Section 313 of the CrPC resulted in material prejudice and a miscarriage of justice. This decision underscores the necessity of ensuring a fair trial for all accused individuals.
Source: Naresh Kumar vs. State of Delhi