Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, ALOK MAHRA
Sunil Singh Panwar – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prosecution case of wife's strangulation murder; defense suicide claim (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. arguments: suicide by hanging vs. strangulation; s313 lapse (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 27 , 28) |
| 3. defective s313 examination failed to put incriminating circumstances (Para 13 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 4. witness testimonies on abuse, cries, suspicious death (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 5. precedent on s313 omission: remand if prejudice caused (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 6. non-compliance occasions prejudice; remand for fresh s313 (Para 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 7. set aside conviction; expedite retrial with bail option (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47) |
JUDGMENT :
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Present appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 10.02.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 02 of 2014, State of Uttarakhand v. Sunil Singh Panwar, by the court of District and Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi. By it, the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of two years.
Failure to specifically put incriminating circumstances to accused under Section 313 CrPC causes prejudice, requiring appellate remand for fresh examination and trial despite delays.
Where there is perfunctory examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., matter is capable of being remitted to trial court from the stage at which prosecution was closed.
Procedure for recording the statement of the accused person so as to allow him an opportunity to explain the incriminating circumstances, if any, appearing in the evidence brought on record by the pr....
The mandatory provision of Section 313 CrPC aims to afford the accused an opportunity to explain each and every circumstance and incriminating evidence against them, and failure to comply with this p....
The court determined that inadequate compliance with Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. during trial prejudiced the accused, necessitating a remand for reconsideration under proper procedural safeguards.
Inadequate confrontation of the accused with incriminating evidence under Section 313 Cr.P.C. constitutes a violation of the right to a fair trial, necessitating case remittance for proper re-evaluat....
(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....
Point of Law : Duty of the trial court to put the substance of all the incriminating circumstances to the accused by framing specific and separate question on each incriminating evidence brought on r....
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
