Basant, J.

What is the correct procedure to be followed by a Sessions Court after closing the evidence of the prosecution under Sec.231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C?) and before proceeding to hear arguments under Sec.234 Cr.P.C.? What is the effect of non-compliance with the mandate of Secs.232 and 233 Cr.P.C.? Are the procedural stipulations mandatory? As soon as an omission/infraction of these provisions occurs, does it ipso facto vitiate the proceedings obliging the superior courts to set aside the verdict and concede acquittal to the accused or remand the case to the Sessions Court to recommence proceedings from that vitiated stage? Is proof of prejudice or possibility thereof in the facts of the given case to be insisted before such verdicts are set aside? These are the questions that arise for consideration before us in this Crl.R.P.

2. The Assistant Sessions Judge in a prosecution under Sec.306 IPC rendered a verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence. The challenge before the Sessions Court was rejected and the appeal was dismissed. The accused has challenged the concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in this revision petition. The matter went before the Bench of the chief Justice and the Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice V.K. Bali felt that the question whether the trial is vitiated for mere non-observance of the procedure prescribed under Sec.232 Cr.P.C. deserves consideration by a Division Bench for an authoritative Pronouncement. Accordingly, the matter was referred to a Division Bench by order of reference dated 15/11/2006 under Sec.3 of the Kerala High Court Act.

3. A Division Bench Considered the question and perceived an apparent conflict between the decision of the Division Bench in Suresh v. State of Kerala (2006 (1) KLT 78) and Ramachandran v. State of Kerala (2005 (3) KLT SN Case No. 89 at page 75). Accordingly, the Bench passed the order of reference dated 12/12/06 and thus the matter has come up before us for consideration.

4. A brief reference to specific facts appears to be necessary. The petitioner married deceased Sakina on 27/3/88. On 26/7/88 the said Sakina set herself ablaze at the matrimonial home. She succumbed to burn injuries on 11/8/88 - well within the period of 7 years after the marriage. A crime was registered. Dying declaration of the deceased was recorded. In her dying declaration, she implicated the petitioner specifically. Investigation was conducted. Final report was filed. Cognizance was taken. The case was committed to the Court of Session. The case was made over to the Assistant Sessions Judge. Charges were framed. The accused denied the charges leveled against him. Thereupon, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 14 and proved Exts. P1 to P9. The prosecution evidence was closed under Sec.231 Cr.P.C. The accused was later examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. After the relevant incriminating circumstances, were put to the accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., the accused was asked if he had anything further to state. He gave a statement. After that statement was recorded, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge proceeded to ask the accused whether he has any defence evidence. Accused stated that he wants to adduce evidence and thereafter

D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined by him. Exts.D1 to D5 were also marked on the side of the accused. The court thereafter proceeded to hear arguments under Sec.234 Cr.P.C. and the verdict of guilty and conviction was pronounced on 26/8/94. After hearing the accused on the question of sentence, the sentence was pronounced on 30/8/94. For the purpose of clarity, we give below the sequence of events as recorded in the order sheet maintained by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge for the relevant period i.e., 27/7/94 to 30/8/94;

" 27.7.94 Accused present. CW11 examined as PW14. Ext.P9 marked. Evidence closed. For 313 to 4.8.94.

4.8.94 Accused present. Questioned u/s 313 Cr.P.C. For defence evidence to 10.8.94.

10.8.94 A