Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2007 Supreme(Del) 2610

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
RANJAN DWIVEDI & ANR. ...Petitioners
versus
C.B.I. Thr. the Director General ..... Respondent
CRL.REV.P. 142/2007 & CRL. M.A. No2835/2007, CRL. REV. P. 143/2007 & CRL. REV. P. 180/2007, CRL.REV.P. 142/2007 & CRL. M.A. No2835/2007
Decided On : 15th November, 2007

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. R.S. Sharma, Mr. Feroze Ahmad, Advocates
Mr. R.M. Tewari, Advocate

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code are intended for the benefit of the accused to explain adverse materials or circumstances and embody the fundamental principle of 'Audi Alterm Partem.' The court emphasized that the power to call the accused to answer questions more than once after the conclusion of prosecution evidence should not be used in a routine or mechanical manner.

Headnote:
Section 313 - Criminal Procedure Code - 313 - 397 - 362 - The court examined the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code after the prosecution evidence was closed and before the accused was called upon to enter into his defense. The court also considered the provisions of Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which states that once a judgment or order disposing of a case is signed, it cannot be altered or reviewed except for clerical or arithmetical errors. The court analyzed the scope and content of Section 313 and whether the court can recall an accused for re-examination under Section 313 after having previously recorded statements. The court found that the provision is intended for the benefit of the accused to explain adverse materials or circumstances and embodies the fundamental principle of 'Audi Alterm Partem.' The court also emphasized that the duty of the court, while examining an accused, is not to put to him the entire evidence on record but to seek an explanation from the accused with reference to any particular circumstance as being sufficient to sustain the conviction. The court held that the power to call the accused to answer questions more than once after the conclusion of prosecution evidence should not be used in a routine or mechanical manner. The court dismissed the revision petitions but issued directions to complete the questioning of the accused within a specified timeframe and commence the examination of defense witnesses on behalf of other accused, considering the charges of conspiracy they faced.
Fact of the Case:

The case involved a bomb explosion at a railway station resulting in the death of the then Railway Minister. The accused were facing trial, and the prosecution evidence was closed. The accused requested the court to recall an earlier order related to the recording of their statements under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court allowed the prosecution's application to recall the accused for re-examination under Section 313, leading to the filing of revision petitions challenging the orders.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the provisions of Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code are intended for the benefit of the accused to explain adverse materials or circumstances and embody the fundamental principle of 'Audi Alterm Partem.' The court emphasized that the power to call the accused to answer questions more than once after the conclusion of prosecution evidence should not be used in a routine or mechanical manner. The court dismissed the revision petitions but issued directions to complete the questioning of the accused within a specified timeframe and commence the examination of defense witnesses on behalf of other accused, considering the charges of conspiracy they faced.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the interpretation of Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code and whether the court can recall an accused for re-examination under Section 313 after having previously recorded statements. The court also addressed the potential prejudice to the accused and the interests of justice in completing the questioning of the accused and commencing the examination of defense witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code are intended for the benefit of the accused to explain adverse materials or circumstances and embody the fundamental principle of 'Audi Alterm Partem.' The court emphasized that the power to call the accused to answer questions more than once after the conclusion of prosecution evidence should not be used in a routine or mechanical manner. The court also issued directions to complete the questioning of the accused within a specified timeframe and commence the examination of defense witnesses on behalf of other accused, considering the charges of conspiracy they faced.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petitions but issued directions to complete the questioning of the accused within a specified timeframe and commence the examination of defense witnesses on behalf of other accused, considering the charges of conspiracy they faced.

Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat:

1. In these revisional proceedings, under Section 397, Criminal Procedure Code (“Cr.PC.”), the petitioners impugn orders of the Special Judge, dated order dated 27.02.2007 (which directed recording of the statement U/s 313 Cr. P.C). By order dated 06.03.2007, the application to recall the first impugned order was rejected. The third order under challenge is dated 21-3-2007.

2. The facts necessary to decide the proceedings are that due to a bomb explosion at Samastipur Railway Station, at 6.30 p.m on 02.01.1975 Shri L.N. Mishra, the then Railway Minister sustained serious injuries. He expired on 03.01.1975 in the morning at 9 am at Danapur, Bihar. The matter was investigated initially by local police, C.I.D and later by CBI. A few persons earlier arrested were discharged. Two of them made confessional statements and one was recorded U/s 164 Cr. P.C. The CBI gave them a clean chit. In June 1975 internal Emergency was imposed and the Ananda Marg sect was banned. The case was later transferred for trial to Delhi. As of today four persons i.e. Santoshanand, Sudevanand, Gopal Ji and Ranjan Dwivedi are accused, and are facing trial.

3. The prosecution evidence was closed on 16.04.1986. Thereafter, the accused wanted statements of certain witnesses to be recorded as Court witnesses who, it was alleged, were deliberately left out by the prosecution agency i.e. CBI. The controversy reached the Supreme Court, which by judgment and order dated 17.11.1992 decided Criminal Appeal Nos. 698-699 of 1992. The appeals of the applicant- accused persons were partly allowed, and the following directions were issued : "Instead we hold that it will be open to the Additional Sessions Judge to decide whether or not he would like to examine all or any of those persons as court witnesses at any stage after the statements of the accused have been recorded U/s 313 of Code, that is to say, that it may come to that conclusion even prior to the accused being called upon to enter upon their defence".

4. It is alleged that the above order held that accused should not be robbed of their right to move the court at the stage of Section 232 of the Cr PC. From 10.01.1994 the Trial Court started recording statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. Ranjan Dwivedi, one of the revisionists, was examined in the end and his statement was closed on 17.12.2004.The trial Court started recording evidence of the Court witnesses from 13.05.2005 and the last witness Shri Arun Kumar Mishra appeared on 10.01.2007, when his examination was deferred till the a time cassette was not repaired. However, in order to facilitate the trial, DW-1 was examined and completed on 19.01.2007. The revisionist, Shri Ranjan Dwivedi filed an application under Section 232 Cr. P.C. on 23.01.2007. The Trial Court noted this in the order dated 08.02.2007. According to the trial court, entering into the defence was conditional and subject to the right reserved by Ranjan Dwivedi for moving an application under Section 232 Cr. P.C. The trial Court by its order allowed the hearing of the application under Section 232 Cr. P.C. and fixed 14.02.2007 for the purpose.

5. On 14.02.2007 an application was moved by CBI for recording statement of Ranjan Dwivedi under Section 313 Cr. P.C. relating to eight witnesses. It is averred that the said 8 witnesses were examined in 1982- 1983; PW-5 was examined on 24.03.1982, PW-6 from 26.03.1982 to 07.04.1982, PW-9 from 21.04.1982 to 22.04.1982, PW- 30 on 25.08.1982, PW-40 on 10.09.1982, PW-71 on 16.02.1983, PW-111 from 26.05.1983 to 29.07.1983 and PW-115 on 04.08.1983 were examined. The trial Court by the first impugned order dated 27.02.2007 directed recording of the statement U/s 313 Cr. P.C. An application to recall this order was made by the accused.

6. By order dated 06.03.2007 the Trial Court dismissed the application of the accused for recall of its previous order relating to recording of statement under Section 313. Both the or

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis