Supreme Court quashes conviction due to Section 313 CrPC violation in criminal conspiracy case: Raj Kumar @ Suman vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023) INSC 478 (11 May 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 11 May 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 478
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Rajesh Bindal, J.
Can a conviction be upheld when a crucial piece of evidence against the accused was not presented to them during their examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal, highlighting the importance of fair trial procedures. The Court overturned the conviction of an accused, emphasizing that all material evidence must be presented to the accused for explanation. This case underscores the necessity of adhering to procedural safeguards to ensure justice is served.

Case Background

The case involves an incident that occurred on October 1, 1995, at approximately 3:30 PM, where a group of individuals, including the appellant Raj Kumar @ Suman, allegedly conspired to intimidate and murder Jawahar Lal (PW-3) and his family. The prosecution’s case was that Jawahar Lal operated a cable TV network, and the accused wanted him to shut it down. During the incident, some of the accused entered Jawahar Lal’s house and attacked his family members, resulting in the death of Chander Shekhar (brother of PW-3) and injuries to others. The specific allegation against Raj Kumar was that he stood near the gate of the gallery with a country-made handgun (“katta”) while the other accused committed the attack inside the house.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Court convicted the appellant on August 27, 2003, for offenses under Section 302 (murder) read with Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing him to life imprisonment. The High Court upheld this conviction. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that a critical piece of evidence against him was not presented during his examination under Section 313 of the CrPC. Specifically, the fact that he was seen standing outside the house with a “katta” was not put to him during his statement under Section 313 CrPC.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This section mandates that the court must question the accused on the evidence presented against them, allowing them to explain any circumstances that appear against them. The Supreme Court emphasized that this provision is crucial for ensuring a fair trial.

Section 313 of the CrPC states:
“313. Power to examine the accused. – (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 he 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 he may have committed. (5) 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.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant’s counsel argued that the only evidence against the appellant was the testimony of PW-5, who stated that the appellant was standing near the gate with a “katta.”
• PW-3, the main witness, admitted in cross-examination that he did not see the appellant on the day of the incident and that PW-5 had told him the appellant’s name.
• The High Court incorrectly stated that PW-13 had also seen the appellant, when in fact, PW-13 did not mention the appellant in their testimony.
• The crucial circumstance of the appellant standing outside with a “katta” was not put to him during his examination under Section 313 of the CrPC.
• The failure to present this circumstance to the appellant caused grave prejudice and resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The respondent’s counsel argued that the appellant did not cross-examine PW-5.
• The objection regarding the omission in the statement under Section 313 of CrPC was raised 16 years after the Trial Court’s judgment, and therefore, it should not be sustained.
• The fact that the objection was not raised earlier indicates that no prejudice was caused to the appellant.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the failure to put the only incriminating circumstance to the appellant during his examination under Section 313 of CrPC vitiates the trial?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered several authorities in its judgment:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Tara Singh v. State [1951 SCC OnLine SC 49]*: The Court followed this authority to emphasize the importance of examining the accused on all points considered important against them.
• Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793]*: The Court relied on this case to reiterate that the accused’s attention should be drawn to every inculpatory material.
• S. Harnam Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1976) 2 SCC 819]*: This authority was followed to reinforce the need to put each material circumstance to the accused specifically and separately.
• Samsul Haque v. State of Assam [(2019) 18 SCC 161]*: The Court used this case to reiterate that the accused must get a fair chance to defend themselves.
• Asraf Ali v. State of Assam [(2008) 16 SCC 328]*: The court followed this authority to reiterate that each material circumstance appearing in evidence against the accused is required to be put to him specifically, distinctly and separately.
• Satyavir Singh Rathi, Assistant Commissioner of Police & Ors. v. State through Central Bureau of Investigation [(2011) 6 SCC 1]*: The court distinguished this case on the facts, stating that the delay in raising the objection is one of the factors but not the only factor.
• Vahitha v. State of Tamil Nadu [2023 SCC OnLine SC 174]*: The Court distinguished this case as it was not relevant to the issue of non-compliance with Section 313.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with ensuring a fair trial for the accused. The Court emphasized that the omission to present the crucial evidence against the appellant during his examination under Section 313 of the CrPC was a significant procedural lapse. This lapse, coupled with the fact that the appellant’s conviction rested solely on this unaddressed evidence, led the Court to conclude that a grave injustice had occurred. The Court was also mindful of the long passage of time since the incident (27 years) and the fact that the appellant had already served a significant portion of his sentence (10 years and 4 months). These factors weighed heavily against remanding the case for a retrial.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as the argument that the appellant’s failure to cross-examine PW-5 and the delay in raising the objection meant no prejudice was caused. However, the Court rejected these arguments, emphasizing that the core requirement of a fair trial—presenting all material evidence to the accused—had been violated. The Court also considered the possibility of remanding the case but ultimately decided against it due to the long passage of time and the appellant’s significant period of incarceration.

The Court’s decision was based on the principle that every accused person has the right to a fair trial, which includes being informed of all the evidence against them and having an opportunity to explain it. The Court stated that the omission to put the crucial circumstance to the appellant during his Section 313 examination was a grave error that could not be overlooked.

The key reasons for the decision were:

• The only incriminating evidence against the appellant was not put to him during his examination under Section 313 of the CrPC.
• This omission caused prejudice to the appellant, violating the principles of a fair trial.
• The long passage of time (27 years since the incident) made it unjust to remand the case for a retrial.
• The appellant had already served a significant portion of his sentence (10 years and 4 months).

The Supreme Court did not have a minority opinion in this case.

The potential implications for future cases include:

• Trial courts must be more diligent in ensuring that all material evidence is presented to the accused during their examination under Section 313 of the CrPC.
• Appellate courts will be more likely to overturn convictions where there has been a failure to comply with Section 313.
• The decision reinforces the importance of procedural safeguards in criminal trials to ensure fairness and justice.

The Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles but reaffirmed the existing principles related to Section 313 of the CrPC.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“It is important therefore that an accused should be properly examined under Section 342 and, as their Lordships of the Privy Council indicated in Dwarkanath Varma v. Emperor, if a point in the evidence is considered important against the accused and the conviction is intended to be based upon it, then it is right and proper that the accused should be questioned about the matter and be given an opportunity of explaining it if he so desires.”

“Section 342 requires the accused to be examined for the purpose of enabling him “to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him”. Now it is evident that when the Sessions Court is required to make the examination under this section, the evidence referred to is the evidence in the Sessions Court and the circumstances which appear against the accused in that court.”

“Section 313 of the Code casts a duty on the court to put, at any enquiry or trial, questions to the accused for the purpose of enabling him to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. It follows as a necessary corollary therefrom that each material circumstance appearing in evidence against the accused is required to be put to him specifically, distinctly and separately.”

Key Takeaways

• Trial courts must ensure that all material circumstances appearing against an accused are specifically put to them during their examination under Section 313 of the CrPC.
• Failure to comply with Section 313 can result in the vitiation of the trial, especially if it causes prejudice to the accused.
• Appellate courts have the power to set aside convictions where there has been a failure to comply with Section 313, and in some cases, remand the matter back to the trial court, but this is not always feasible, especially after a long passage of time.
• The Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of procedural fairness in ensuring justice in criminal trials.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the respondent shall forthwith set the appellant at liberty unless he is required to be detained in connection with any other case.

Specific Amendments Analysis

The judgment does not discuss any specific amendments.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the failure to put a material circumstance to the accused during their examination under Section 313 of the CrPC, which causes prejudice to the accused, vitiates the trial. This case reinforces the existing legal position regarding the importance of Section 313 and the need for fair trial procedures. The Supreme Court did not change any previous position of the law but rather reiterated the importance of following the existing law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the conviction of Raj Kumar @ Suman highlights the critical importance of adhering to procedural safeguards in criminal trials. The Court emphasized that the failure to present all material evidence to the accused during their examination under Section 313 of the CrPC constitutes a grave error that can lead to a miscarriage of justice. This ruling serves as a reminder to trial courts to be meticulous in ensuring that every accused person is given a fair opportunity to explain the evidence against them.