Back
High Court Of Calcutta
N. K. BATABYAL, NURE ALAM CHOWDHURY
RANJIT MONDAL AND SAJAL BARUI - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 13 Of 1996
Decided On : 01/31/1997
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 313 - Examination of Accused - Guidelines - Questions put to accused must be fair, simple and understandable - Rolled up questions, confusing questions and questions involving multiplicity of phases of occurrence or acts are not permissible - Questions must be put in a manner that the accused can properly answer - Failure to comply with these guidelines may result in prejudice to the accused and vitiate the trial.
Fact of the Case:
Six accused were convicted of murder and sentenced to death by the trial court. The accused appealed against the conviction and sentence, and also filed a death reference. The main issue in the appeal was whether the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) was conducted in accordance with the law and whether the questions put to the accused were fair and proper.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the questions put to the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. were not in conformity with the principles and guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court. The questions were rolled up, confusing, and involved a multiplicity of phases of occurrence or acts. The accused, who were tender school-boys, were placed in a sombre scenario of a legal arena under the shadow of a grave charge of murder. Their frame of mind could not be normal and they were deprived of an opportunity to present their proper stand in the trial. The High Court held that this caused prejudice to the accused.
Issues: 1. Whether the questions put to the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. were fair and proper? 2. Whether the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was conducted in accordance with the law?
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court relied on the following principles and guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court regarding the examination of an accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.: 1. The attention of the accused must be specifically invited to inculpatory pieces of evidence or circumstances laid on record with a view to giving him an opportunity to offer an explanation if he chooses to do so. 2. The questions must not be in the nature of cross-examination to fill up the lacuna of the prosecution case, the questions should not be such as will subject an accused person to admission. 3. Irrelevant questions should not be asked to confuse the accused person. 4. Questions should be put in such manner that it can be answered properly. 5. Such questions should not be asked in which the accused is liable to be prejudiced. 6. Rolled-up questions containing several questions in lengthy form cannot be asked. 7. Circumstances appearing from the evidence against an accused should be put in simple way.
Final Decision: The High Court set aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and directed the trial court to examine all the six appellants afresh u/s. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by re-framing only those questions which are contrary to the principles and guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions quoted above and conclude the trial preferably within three months from the date of receipt of the records from this Court.
( 1 ) THESE five appeals, (1) Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 1996 (Ranjit Mondal and Sajal Barui alias Papa v. State), (2) Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 1996 (Alok Saha alias Toto v. State), (3) Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 1996 (Debashish Dey v. State), (4) Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 1996 (Subhrasil Ray alias Raja v. State) and (5) Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 1996 (Samar Saha alias Buro v. State), have been preferred against the same judgment dated January 10, 1996, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Barasat in Sessions Trial No. 4 (9) of 1994. In the impugned judgment the learned Judge convicted the appellant Sajal Barui alias Papa u/ss. 302/34, I. P. C. , 201, I. P. C. and u/s. 120-B, I. P. C. and sentenced him to death by hanging and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- i. d. , to suffer R. I. for one year on his conviction u/s. 302/34, I. P. C. , and sentenced him to R. I. for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- i. d. to R. I. for six months on his conviction u/s. 201, I. P. C. No separate sentence was, however, awarded for his conviction u/s. 120-B, I. P. C. The learned Judge also convicted appellant Ranjit Mondal u/ss. 302/34 and 380, I. P. C. and sentenced him to death by hanging and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- i. d. to suffer R. I. for one year more on his conviction u/s. 302/34, I. P. C. and sentenced him to R. I. for three years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- i. d. to R. I. for six months on his conviction u/s. 380, I. P. C. The learned Judge has also submitted a reference to this Hon'ble Court for confirmation of the sentence of death of Sajal Barui and Ranjit Mondal which has been registered as Death Reference No. 2 of 1996 and is being heard along with the aforesaid five appeals. Both the convicts Ranjit Mondal and Sajal Barui are appellants before this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 1996.
( 2 ) THE learned Judge also convicted Alok Saha alias Toto (appellant in Cri. Appeal No. 35 of 1996) u/ss. 302/109, 411 and 120-B, I. P. C. and sentenced him to suffer R. I. for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/- i. d. to R. I. for one year on his conviction U/s. 302/109, I. P. C. and also sentenced him to R. I. for two years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- i. d. to R. I. for one year on his conviction u/s. 411, I. P. C. No separate sentence was, however, awarded on his conviction u/s. 120b, I. P. C.
( 3 ) DEBASHISH Dey (Appellant in Cri. Appeal No. 45 of 1996) is also convicted u/s. 302/34, I. P. C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/- i. d. to suffer R. I. for one year.
( 4 ) SUBHRASIL Ray alias Raja (Appellant in Cri. Appeal No. 60 of 1996) is convicted u/ss. 302/109, 411, 380 and 120-B, I. P. C. and sentenced to imprisonment for 1ife on conviction u/s. 302/109, I. P. C. and R. I. for one year and line of Rs. 1,000/- i. d. , R. I. for six months on conviction u/s. 411, I. P. C. and R. I. for two years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- i. d. , R. I. for one year on conviction u/ S. 380, I. P. C. No separate sentence is awarded on his conviction u/s. 120-B, I. P. C.
( 5 ) SAMAR Saha alias Buro (Appellant in Cri. Appeal No. 61 of 1996) is convicted u/ss. 302/109 and 120-B, I. P. C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/- i. d. , R. I. for one year on his conviction u/s. 302/109, I. P. C. but no separate sentence was awarded for his conviction u/s. 120-B, I. P. C.
( 6 ) THE learned Judge also directed that all the sentences awarded against each of the six convicts shall run concurrently.
( 7 ) PROSECUTION case, in brief, at the trial is as follows :-ACCUSED Sajal Barui, son of Subal Barui, resident of Flat No. 4a of the 4th floor of "subham Apartments," a multi-storeyed building at 5, N. C. Sengupta Sarani, under P. S. Dumdurn, District 24 Pargans (North), in order to grab the entire property of his father, hatched up a plan to kill his father, Subal Barui, step-brother Kajal Barui, earned sympathy of the other five appellants, who are his friends and associates by way of narr
AI
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
