Supreme Court quashes conviction due to Section 313 CrPC violation: Raj Kumar vs. State (2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 11 May 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 520
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Rajesh Bindal, J.
Can a criminal conviction be upheld if the accused was not given a chance to explain a critical piece of evidence against them? This question was at the heart of a recent Supreme Court case, where the Court examined the importance of fair procedure in criminal trials. The Supreme Court of India, in this case, addressed the critical issue of whether a conviction can stand when the accused was not confronted with a key piece of evidence during their examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The case revolves around an incident that occurred on October 1, 1995, at approximately 3:30 PM. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, Raj Kumar, along with several others, conspired to intimidate and murder Jawahar Lal (PW-3) and his family. The motive was that Jawahar Lal was running a cable TV network, and the accused wanted him to shut it down. According to the prosecution, while other accused individuals entered Jawahar Lal’s house and attacked his family members with firearms and knives, Raj Kumar was allegedly standing near the gate with a country-made handgun (katta). During the attack, Chander Shekhar, brother of Jawahar Lal, died, and other family members sustained serious injuries. The Trial Court convicted Raj Kumar, and the High Court upheld the conviction.

Timeline:

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant’s counsel argued that the only evidence against Raj Kumar was the testimony of PW-5, who stated that Raj Kumar 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 told him the appellant’s name.
• The High Court incorrectly stated that PW-13 also saw the appellant, when in fact, PW-13 did not mention the appellant in his testimony.
• The crucial circumstance of the appellant standing outside with a katta was not presented to him during his statement under Section 313 of CrPC, which caused grave prejudice and resulted in a failure of justice.
• The appellant relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Ranvir Yadav v. State of Bihar, Sukhjit Singh v. State of Punjab, Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand, and Samsul Haque v. State of Assam, to support the argument that not putting the circumstance to the accused during examination under Section 313 of CrPC is a serious flaw.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The respondent-State argued that the appellant did not cross-examine PW-5.
• The respondent cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Satyavir Singh Rathi, Assistant Commissioner of Police & Ors. v. State through Central Bureau of Investigation, stating that objections regarding omissions in statements under Section 313 of CrPC should be raised early to allow for correction.
• The respondent contended that since the objection was raised 16 years after the Trial Court’s judgment, it should not be sustained, and that the failure to raise the objection earlier shows that no prejudice was caused to the appellant.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the conviction of the appellant can be sustained when the only incriminating circumstance appearing against him was not put to him in his statement under Section 313 of CrPC.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

• Tara Singh v. State [1951 SCC OnLine SC 49] – Supreme Court of India: This case emphasized the importance of examining the accused properly under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (corresponding to Section 313 of the CrPC, 1973). It highlighted that if a point in the evidence is considered important against the accused, they should be questioned about it and given an opportunity to explain.
• Dwarkanath Varma v. Emperor [AIR 1933 PC 124] – Privy Council: The court referred to this case to underscore the principle that an accused should be questioned about important points in evidence against them.
• Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793] – Supreme Court of India: This case discussed the consequences of non-compliance with Section 342 of the CrPC, 1898. It stated that the prisoner’s attention should be drawn to every inculpatory material to enable them to explain it. However, it also noted that such an omission does not automatically vitiate the proceedings unless it causes prejudice.
• S. Harnam Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1976) 2 SCC 819] – Supreme Court of India: This case reiterated the duty of the court to put each material circumstance against the accused specifically, distinctly, and separately. Failure to do so amounts to a serious irregularity, vitiating the trial if it prejudices the accused.
• Samsul Haque v. State of Assam [(2019) 18 SCC 161] – Supreme Court of India: The Court relied on this case to highlight that incriminating material must be put to the accused for a fair chance to defend themselves, in line with the principle of audi alteram partem. The court also noted that not putting the inculpatory material to the accused adds to the vulnerability of the prosecution case.
• Asraf Ali v. State of Assam [(2008) 16 SCC 328] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited within the Samsul Haque judgment to reinforce the importance of putting each material circumstance appearing in the evidence against the accused to him specifically, distinctly, and separately.
• Ranvir Yadav v. State of Bihar [(2009) 6 SCC 595] – Supreme Court of India: Cited by the appellant to support the argument that not putting the circumstance to the accused during examination under Section 313 of CrPC is a serious flaw.
• Sukhjit Singh v. State of Punjab [(2014) 10 SCC 270] – Supreme Court of India: Cited by the appellant to support the argument that not putting the circumstance to the accused during examination under Section 313 of CrPC is a serious flaw.
• Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand [(2020) 10 SCC 108] – Supreme Court of India: Cited by the appellant to support the argument that not putting the circumstance to the accused during examination under Section 313 of CrPC is a serious flaw.
• Satyavir Singh Rathi, Assistant Commissioner of Police & Ors. v. State through Central Bureau of Investigation [(2011) 6 SCC 1] – Supreme Court of India: Relied on by the respondent, this case stated that objections regarding omissions in statements under Section 313 of CrPC should be raised early to allow for correction.

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with the punishment for criminal conspiracy.
• Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with the punishment for attempt to murder.
• Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973: This section empowers the court to examine the accused and requires the court to put all incriminating circumstances to the accused to enable them to explain.
• Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898: This is the corresponding provision to Section 313 of the CrPC, 1973, and was considered in earlier cases.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• The Court relied on Tara Singh v. State [1951 SCC OnLine SC 49]* to emphasize the importance of properly examining the accused and ensuring they are questioned about important evidence against them.
• The Court used Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793]* to highlight that the accused’s attention should be drawn to every inculpatory material, but also noted that omissions do not automatically vitiate proceedings unless prejudice is shown.
• The Court cited S. Harnam Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1976) 2 SCC 819]* to reinforce the duty of the court to put material circumstances against the accused specifically and separately.
• The Court referred to Samsul Haque v. State of Assam [(2019) 18 SCC 161]* to reiterate that incriminating material must be put to the accused for a fair chance to defend themselves.
• The Court distinguished Satyavir Singh Rathi, Assistant Commissioner of Police & Ors. v. State through Central Bureau of Investigation [(2011) 6 SCC 1]*, stating that while objections should be raised early, the prejudice to the accused remains the primary concern.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the failure of the Trial Court to adhere to the procedural safeguards provided under Section 313 of the CrPC. The Court emphasized that the accused must be given a fair opportunity to explain the circumstances appearing against them, which was not done in this case. The Court also considered the fact that the appellant was convicted based on a single piece of evidence that was not put to him during his examination. The passage of time and the fact that the appellant had already served a significant period of incarceration also weighed against remanding the case for a retrial. The Court also highlighted the importance of Judicial Academies to ensure that the importance of Section 313 of CrPC is understood.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as whether the procedural lapse could be cured, but ultimately rejected them due to the significant prejudice caused to the appellant and the substantial time that had passed since the incident. The Court also considered the fact that the appellant had already served a significant period of incarceration.

The Supreme Court held that the failure to put the crucial circumstance to the accused during his examination under Section 313 of CrPC caused serious prejudice and vitiated the trial. The Court stated that, “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.” The Court also noted that, “Section 342 requires the accused to be examined for the purpose of enabling him “to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him”.” Further, the Court observed, “The object of Section 313 of the Code is to establish a direct dialogue between the Court and the accused.”

The Court’s decision was unanimous.

Key Takeaways

• The judgment underscores the critical importance of adhering to the procedural safeguards provided under Section 313 of the CrPC.
• It emphasizes that every material circumstance appearing against the accused must be specifically put to them during their examination.
• Failure to comply with Section 313 of CrPC can vitiate a trial if it causes prejudice to the accused.
• The Court also highlighted that even if the defect is curable, the passage of time and the period of incarceration already undergone by the accused should be considered.
• The judgment also emphasizes the role of Judicial Academies to ensure that the importance of Section 313 of CrPC is understood.

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.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the failure to put a crucial piece of evidence to the accused during their examination under Section 313 of CrPC is a serious procedural flaw that can vitiate the trial if it causes prejudice to the accused. This judgment reinforces the importance of procedural fairness in criminal trials and provides clarity on the application of Section 313 of CrPC. There is no change in the previous position of the law, but the judgment highlights the importance of following the procedure under Section 313 CrPC.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Raj Kumar @ Suman vs. State (NCT of Delhi) highlights the crucial role of procedural fairness in criminal trials. The Court set aside the conviction of the appellant, emphasizing that the failure to present a key piece of evidence during the examination under Section 313 of CrPC resulted in prejudice and vitiated the trial. The judgment serves as a reminder to trial courts to adhere strictly to procedural safeguards to ensure a fair and just outcome.