Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 1987

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
Chandan Pasi & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State Of The Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No (s). 5137-5138 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No (s). 3685-3686 of 2025)
Decided On : 01-12-2025

Advocates appeared
For Petitioner(s): Mrs. Anjana Prakash, Sr. Adv. Mr.Anuj Prakaash, Adv. Mr. Niraj Dubey, Adv. Mr.Pradum Kumar, Adv. Mr. Kumar Mihir, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Azmat Hayat Amanullah, AOR Ms. Rebecca Mishra, Adv. Ms. Ekta Kundu, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINTS
(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) Trial is a function of memory and when translated into spoken word testimony on oath, becomes evidence and same is susceptible to vagaries of time.

Headnote:
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 313 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 351] – 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 – This ample opportunity can take many forms, whether it is adequate representation through counsel or opportunity to call witnesses to present their side of the case or to have occasion to answer each and every allegation against them, on their own, in their own words – Primary purpose is to establish direct dialogue between court and accused and to put every important incriminating piece of evidence to accused and grant him opportunity to answer and explain. (Paras 6 and 7)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 448 and 323 read with Section 34 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 313 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 351] – House trespass and hurt – Common intention – Conviction and sentence – Statements given by all three persons are carbon copies of each other – Such statements cannot pass muster – In the desire to secure conviction for accused persons, Prosecutor also let their duty of assisting Court in conducting examination of accused under this section fall by wayside – Prosecutor is an officer of Court and holds solemn duty to act in interest of justice – They cannot act as a defence Lawyer, but for State, with sole aim of making gauntlet of punishment fall on accused – On this ground alone, Appeals allowed and matter sent back to concerned Trial Court to recommence from state of recording of Section 313 CrPC statements – Trial is a function of memory – It is this memory that, when translated into spoken word testimony on oath, becomes evidence, and same is susceptible to vagaries of time. (Paras 9 and 10)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals arise from the final judgments and orders dated 4th September, 2024 and 26th September, 2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.443 of 2017, which affirmed judgment of conviction dated 27th March 2017 and order of sentence dated 29th March 2017 passed by Court of District & Session Judge, Buxar1 in Sessions Trial No.256 of 2016, whereby a total of six persons were sentenced to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- each under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code 18602, one year simple imprisonment each under Sections 448 & 323 along with Section 34 IPC with all of them running concurrently.
Findings of Court:
Registrar (Judicial) to communicate this judgment and order to the learned Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Patna, who will forthwith communicate the same to the concerned court for necessary action and compliance.
Result : Appeals allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly! Please provide the legal document content you'd like me to analyze, and I will generate the key points with references as specified.

JUDGMENT :

Leave granted.

2. The present appeals arise from the final judgments and orders dated 4th September, 2024 and 26th September, 2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.443 of 2017, which affirmed the judgment of conviction dated 27th March 2017 and the order of sentence dated 29th March 2017 passed by the Court of District & Session Judge, Buxar¹[Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’.] in Sessions Trial No.256 of 2016, whereby a total of six persons were sentenced to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- each under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860²[‘IPC’ for short.], one year simple imprisonment each under Sections 448 & 323 along with Section 34 IPC with all of them running concurrently. Before us are three of the six convicts namely – Chandan Pasi, Pappu Pasi and Gidik Pasi. Here only it may be noted that there was a seventh accused person who was, by the process of law held to be a juvenile and thus dealt with in accordance with the applicable law.

3. By way of a factual background, it shall suffice to take notice of the following:

3.1. On 31st March 2016, the informant Kachan Pasi along with his father Ghughali Pasi, mother Kouta Devi and sister-in-law Dharmsheela Devi were returning from the fields of one Nanhaku Singh when the accused persons surrounded the above-named and assaulted Ghughali Pasi with a katta, who died as a result thereof. Particular allegations of such assault were also levelled against Joni Pasi @Ravindra Pasi.

3.2. The Trial Court convicted in the manner already referred to supra. All the accused persons before the Trial Court filed appeals under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973³[Hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”], in which the High Court upheld the findings of the Court below.

4. We have heard Ms. Anjana Prakash, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and learned Counsel appearing for the State.

5. A perusal of the Special Leave Petition reveals that amongst other grounds, the primary contention rests on the non- compliance of Section 313, CrPC. This Court had indicated in the order issuing notice that, should the ground of proper compliance be made out, only then, we would proceed to examine other grounds.

6. One of the non-negotiable requirements of a fair trial is that the accused persons should have ample opportunity to dispel the case and claims of the prosecution against them. This ample opportunity can take many forms, whether it is adequate representation through counsel or the opportunity to call witnesses to present their side of the case or to have the occasion to answer each and every allegation against them, on their own, in their own words. The last one happens under Section 313 CrPC.

7. This Court, in many judgments, delineated the scope and object of Section 313 CrPC. The position is no longer up for debate. Even so, we may refer to certain pronouncements for the sake of completeness.

7.1. In Sanatan Naskar v. State of W.B., (2010) 8 SCC 249, this Court as follows, regarding the scope of the examination under Section 313 CrPC:

22. As already noticed, the object of recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC is to put all incriminating evidence to the accused so as to provide him an opportunity to explain such incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution. At the same time, also permit him to put forward his own version or reasons, if he so chooses, in relation to his involvement or otherwise in the crime. The court has been empowered to examine the accused but only after the prosecution evidence has been concluded. It is a mandatory obligation upon the court and, besides ensuring the compliance therewith, the cour