Fair trial under Section 313 CrPC requires specific questions on each incriminating circumstance; a perfunctory examination can vitiate conviction.

Section 313 CrPC requires every material inculpatory circumstance to be put to the accused specifically, distinctly and separately so the accused has a fair chance to explain the prosecution case in conformity with natural justice. If the examination is perfunctory or too general, the court should ordinarily exclude the unput material from consideration unless no prejudice has resulted. On the facts described, the accused was not confronted with the decisive circumstances relied on by the trial court, and the questions did not provide a real opportunity to answer them. The defective examination was therefore treated as fatal to the conviction, and relief followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused's examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was so perfunctory and incomplete that the conviction stood vitiated for want of a fair opportunity to explain the incriminating circumstances.

Analysis: Section 313 is intended to enable the accused to explain every material circumstance appearing in the evidence against him and to ensure a fair criminal trial in conformity with natural justice. Each inculpatory circumstance relied upon by the prosecution must be specifically, distinctly, and separately put to the accused; where that is not done, the court must ordinarily exclude such material from consideration unless prejudice is shown not to have resulted. The examination in the present case did not put the material circumstances found by the trial court to the accused, and the questions were so general that they did not afford a real opportunity to answer the decisive incriminating features of the prosecution case.

Conclusion: The defective examination under Section 313 vitiated the conviction, and the accused was entitled to relief.

---