Supreme Court Acquits Life Convict, Finds Procedural Lapses in Trial

Background

The case involved the murder of Arun Kumar , where the appellant, Naresh Kumar , was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) with the aid of Section 34 IPC. The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court, and his conviction was later confirmed by the High Court.

Arguments

The appellant's main argument was that the trial court failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) during his examination. Specifically , the appellant contended that two crucial incriminating circumstances were not put to him, namely, the exhortation to kill the deceased and the fact that the appellant had caught hold of the deceased to enable the co-accused to stab him.

Court's Analysis and Reasoning

The Supreme Court acknowledged that the failure to comply with the mandatory questioning under Section 313 CrPC can vitiate a trial if it results in material prejudice to the accused. The court noted that the two incriminating circumstances were not put to the appellant during his examination, and this formed the basis for the finding of common intention under Section 34 IPC, which ultimately led to his conviction for murder.

The court held that when the consequence of a finding of guilt is the imposition of an extreme punishment, such as life imprisonment, the failure to comply with the mandatory procedures under Section 313 CrPC cannot be ignored, even if the issue was not raised appropriately at earlier stages.

Decision

The Supreme Court set aside the appellant's conviction and acquitted him of the offences. The court noted that the incident occurred more than 29 years ago, and the appellant had already undergone over 12 years of incarceration. In such circumstances, the court held that subjecting the appellant to further examination under Section 313 CrPC would cause him additional prejudice, and the trial was vitiated due to the patent illegality.

The court made it clear that its decision would not disturb the conviction of the co-accused, as that was a matter to be dealt with in a separate appeal, if any.