Judgment : https://lawyerslibrary.in/books/cbze/
Citation: 2025 INSC 529
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Abhay S. Oka, Pankaj Mithal, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.
Date: April 22, 2025
Relevant Provision: Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)
Corresponding Provision: Section 351, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Introduction
Section 313 CrPC mandates that the trial court provide the accused an opportunity to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against them. This provision ensures a fair trial by enabling the accused to respond to incriminating evidence. In Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., the Supreme Court emphasized the critical importance of compliance with Section 313 CrPC, highlighting its role in safeguarding the accused’s rights and the consequences of non-compliance.
Key Principles from the Judgment
The Supreme Court, relying on its precedent in Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023) 17 SCC 95, elucidated the following principles regarding Section 313 CrPC:
- Duty of the Trial Court:
- The trial court must specifically, distinctly, and separately put each material circumstance in the evidence to the accused. Material circumstances are those on which the prosecution seeks conviction.
- Failure to do so constitutes a serious irregularity, potentially vitiating the trial if it prejudices the accused.
- Purpose of Section 313:
- The examination under Section 313 CrPC enables the accused to explain incriminating evidence, ensuring they are not unfairly convicted without an opportunity to respond.
- This process upholds the principles of natural justice and fair trial.
- Consequences of Non-Compliance:
- Material circumstances not put to the accused must ordinarily be excluded from consideration, as they deny the accused a chance to explain.
- In this case, the dying declarations of two victims were not presented to the accused, rendering them inadmissible and weakening the prosecution’s case.
- Prejudice and Curability:
- Non-compliance is a curable defect if it does not result in a failure of justice. However, the passage of time is a critical factor in determining curability.
- In this case, a 14-year delay made remand for further examination unjust, as the accused had faced incarceration and the threat of capital punishment.
- Role of Appellate Courts:
- Appellate courts can cure irregularities by questioning the accused on omitted circumstances or remanding the case to the trial court for supplementary examination under Section 313 CrPC.
- However, remand after a significant delay may prejudice the accused, as seen in this case.
- Judicial Assistance:
- Trial judges can seek assistance from the prosecutor and defense counsel to prepare relevant questions, leveraging Section 313(5) CrPC to minimize errors in complex trials with voluminous evidence.
- Lawyers must act as officers of the court, not as mouthpieces for their clients, when assisting in this process.
Application in the Case
In Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh, the trial court failed to put key prosecution evidence, including the dying declarations of Amina and Fatima, to the accused during his examination under Section 313 CrPC. This omission was compounded by the failure to present other witnesses’ testimonies regarding the declarations. The Supreme Court held that:
- The accused was prejudiced, as he was denied the opportunity to explain the incriminating evidence.
- The dying declarations, a cornerstone of the prosecution’s case, were excluded from consideration, significantly weakening the case for conviction.
- Remanding the case after 14 years was deemed unjust due to the accused’s prolonged incarceration (over 6 years) and the prior threat of capital punishment.
- The High Court’s acquittal was upheld, as the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt absent the excluded evidence.
Broader Implications
The Supreme Court expressed concern over recurring lapses in complying with Section 313 CrPC, noting that such defaults persist despite earlier observations in Tara Singh v. State (1951 SCC 903). To address this systemic issue, the Court made the following recommendations:
- High Court Oversight: High Courts should examine compliance with Section 313 CrPC at the earliest stage in appeals against conviction. If defects are found, the High Court can record a further statement or direct the trial court to do so, mitigating prejudice due to delays.
- Judicial Training: The National and State Judicial Academies were urged to train judicial officers on the importance of Section 313 CrPC to reduce errors and ensure fair trials.
- Registry Action: The Court directed its registry to forward the judgment to judicial academies to facilitate awareness and training.
Conclusion
The judgment underscores that Section 313 CrPC is a cornerstone of a fair criminal trial, ensuring the accused’s right to respond to incriminating evidence. Non-compliance can lead to the exclusion of critical evidence and, in some cases, vitiate the trial. The Court’s emphasis on early appellate review and judicial training aims to prevent future lapses, reinforcing the procedural safeguards enshrined in Section 313 CrPC. This case serves as a reminder to trial courts to meticulously adhere to this provision and to appellate courts to proactively address any irregularities.