Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Ramji Prasad Jaiswal @ Ramjee Prasad Jaiswal And Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 490 Of 2025 (Arising Out Of SLP(Criminal) No. 2629 Of 2012)
Decided On : 20-05-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 471 read with Sections 468, 420 and 120B - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 - Cheating, forgery and conspiracy - Conviction and sentence - Manner in which trial court had recorded statements of appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was not at all in tune with requirements of said provision - As all incriminating evidence were not put to notice of appellants, there was clear breach of Section 313 Cr.P.C. as well as principle of audi alteram partem - This caused serious prejudice to appellants to put forth their case - Ultimately, such evidences were relied upon by court to convict appellants - Such omission, which is a serious irregularity, has completely vitiated trial - Nineteen years have gone by since then - At this distant point of time, instead of aiding cause of justice, it will lead to miscarriage of justice if cases qua two appellants are remanded to trial court to restart trial from stage of recording statements of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. - In such circumstances, it is neither possible nor feasible to order such remand - Appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt because of such omission in recording of their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. since trial court had relied on evidence adverse to appellants while convicting them - Conviction and sentence set aside. (Paras 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39)
(B) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 - Section 7A - Claim of juvenility - Claim of juvenility could be raised before any court and at any stage - If upon such inquiry, court found the person to be a juvenile on the date of commission of offence, it has to forward juvenile to Juvenile Justice Board for passing appropriate orders and sentence passed by a court, would be deemed to have no effect. (Paras 20 and 21)
Facts of the case:
High Court vide the common judgment and order dated 24.11.2011 came to the conclusion that appellants were appropriately convicted and correctly sentenced under Section 471 read with Sections 468, 420 and 120B IPC and under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the PC Act. Accordingly, both appeals were dismissed.
Findings of Court:
Appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt because of such omission in the recording of their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. since trial court had relied on the evidence adverse to appellants while convicting them.
Result : Criminal appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
(Ujjal Bhuyan, J.)
This appeal by special leave arises out of the judgment and order dated 24.11.2011 in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 418/2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna. By the aforesaid judgment and order dated 24.11.2011, a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Patna (High Court) dismissed Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 430 of 2006 (Shiv Narayan Bansal and another Vs. State of Bihar) and Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 418 of 2006 (Ramji Prasad Jaiswal alias Ramjee Prasad Jaiswal and two others Vs. State of Bihar).
2. In this appeal, we are concerned with the decision of the High Court dated 24.11.2011 in respect of Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 418 of 2006. The three appellants in this case are:
2. Ashok Kumar Jaiswal, and
3. Bal Mukund Jaiswal.
3. It may be mentioned that appellants along with the appellants of Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.430 of 2006 were tried by the Court of learned Special Judge, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), South Bihar, Patna (‘CBI Court” hereinafter) in Special Case No. 52/1983 for allegedly committing offences under Sections 420, 440, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Section 5(2) and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
3.1. By the judgment and order dated 29.05.2006, appellants in both the criminal appeals were held guilty of committing offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120B IPC read with Section 5(2) and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (briefly ‘the PC Act’ hereinafter). Accordingly, appellants in both the appeals were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment (RI) for three years under Section 420 IPC and also to pay fine of rupees forty thousand. They were further directed to suffer RI for three years under Section 468 IPC besides paying fine of rupees five thousand. That apart, each of the appellants were directed to suffer RI for two years and one year respectively under Section 471 read with Sections 468, 420 and 120B IPC. The substantive sentence of imprisonment of one year was inclusive of the sentence awarded to each of the appellants for the offence under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the PC Act. It was directed that the sentences imposed were to run concurrently.
4. Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, all the convicts filed two criminal appeals before the High Court, being Criminal Appeal (SJ) Nos. 418 and 430 of 2006. It may be mentioned that after filing of appeal in the High Court, the second appellant Chetharu Singh in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.430 of 2006 passed away. Therefore, the appeal qua him stood abated. The said appeal proceeded against the remaining sole appellant Shiv Narayan Bansal.
4.1. High Court vide the common judgment and order dated 24.11.2011 came to the conclusion that the appellants were appropriately convicted and correctly sentenced. Accordingly, both the appeals were dismissed.
5. As noted above, appellants in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.418 of 2006: (1) Ramji Prasad Jaiswal alias Ramjee Prasad Jaiswal (2) Ashok Kumar Jaiswal and (3) Bal Mukund Jaiswal preferred the related SLP (Criminal) No. 2629 of 2012.
6. By order dated 26.03.2012, this Court after condoning the delay issued notice qua appellant Nos.1 and 2 on the question of sentence only. In respect of appellant No.3, notice was issued on the question of sentence as also on the question of his being a juvenile on the date of commission of offence.
7. On 21.09.2012, this Court considered the plea of juvenility raised by appellant No.3. As per the matriculation certificate, appellant No.3 was born on 24.12.1965 which would mean that he was around 17 years of age in December 1982 when the offence in question was allegedly committed by him. Learned Additional Solicitor General upon instructions submitted that according to the preliminary enquiry made by CBI, the certificate relied upon by appellant was found to be genuine. Therefore, this Court direct
(1) Where all incriminating evidence are not put to notice of appellants, there is clear breach of Section 313 Cr.P.C. as well as principle of audi alteram partem.(2) Claim of juvenility could be rai....
(1) Court must ordinarily eschew material circumstances not put to accused from consideration while dealing with case of particular accused.(2) Examination of accused – Court is empowered to take hel....
(1) Examination of accused – One of non-negotiable requirements of a fair trial is that accused persons should have ample opportunity to dispel the case and claims of prosecution against them.(2) Tri....
Improperly recorded statements of accused under S.342 invalidated conviction, requiring remand for retrial.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of properly examining the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC to allow them to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence....
The judgment emphasizes the necessity of individual examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to ensure fair trial rights, and procedural defects can lead to acquittal if they cause prejudice.
A confession made under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot alone serve as the basis for conviction without corroborating evidence, highlighting the necessity for the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reaso....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
