Conviction Nullified Due to Inadequate Examination of Accused u/s 313 CrPC; Bail Bond Discharged.

The SC allowed the appeal, nullifying the conviction and setting aside the HC's judgment. The trial court's inadequate examination of the accused under Section 313 CrPC was deemed a serious irregularity, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the appellant's bail bond was discharged, and the conviction was voided.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC.
2. Alteration of conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC by the High Court.
3. Examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. Sufficiency and nature of evidence presented by the prosecution.
5. Adequacy of questioning under Section 313 and its impact on the accused's right to a fair trial.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC:
The appellant was initially convicted by the Learned District and Sessions Judge, Kamrup, under Section 304 Part I of the IPC for causing the death of the deceased with a piece of wood, resulting in a 10-year rigorous imprisonment sentence and a fine of Rs. 200/-.

2. Alteration of Conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC by the High Court:
The High Court partially allowed the appeal, altering the conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC and reducing the sentence to 5 years of rigorous imprisonment. The High Court observed that although the trial court's examination under Section 313 was flawed, it did not cause material prejudice to the accused.

3. Examination of the Accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The Supreme Court scrutinized the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code. It was found that the trial court did not adequately bring the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution to the notice of the accused, rendering his examination an "empty formality." This failure was deemed a serious irregularity that vitiated the trial.

4. Sufficiency and Nature of Evidence Presented by the Prosecution:
The prosecution presented circumstantial evidence and testimonies from various witnesses, including the informant (PW-1), an eye witness (PW-5), and the doctor who conducted the autopsy (PW-7). The trial court found seven circumstantial pieces of evidence proving the guilt of the accused, including the accused's quarrel with the deceased, threats, and absconding post-crime.

5. Adequacy of Questioning under Section 313 and Its Impact on the Accused's Right to a Fair Trial:
The Supreme Court emphasized that each material circumstance must be specifically, distinctly, and separately put to the accused during the examination under Section 313. Failure to do so prejudices the accused's right to a fair trial. The Court noted that the trial court's questions were broadly formulated and did not cover the specific circumstances relied upon for conviction. This inadequacy led to the setting aside of the High Court's judgment.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and the judgment of the High Court. It was held that the trial court's failure to properly examine the accused under Section 313 of the Code resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The appellant's bail bond was discharged, and the conviction was nullified.

---