2014 (11) TMI 1271 - SC - Indian Laws

High Court quashes conviction due to procedure lapse, orders fresh trial

The High Court set aside the accused's conviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 25(1B) of the Arms Act due to non-compliance with Section 313 CrPC. ... Examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - obligation to put incriminating circumstances and the prejudice requirement for non-compliance - appellate powers to examine counsel or remit for retrial under Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - remand for re-recording of statement from the stage of Section 313 questioning - principle of natural justice (audi alteram partem) in Section 313 complianceExamination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - obligation to put incriminating circumstances and the prejudice requirement for non-compliance - Legal effect of omission to put incriminating material to the accused while recording statement under Section 313 CrPC. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that Section 313 CrPC is mandatory in requiring the court to bring incriminating circumstances in the prosecution evidence to the accused's notice so that he may explain them; this embodies the principle of fairness and audi alteram partem. However, non-compliance does not ipso facto vitiate the trial. If a material circumstance is not put to the accused, that circumstance ordinarily should be eschewed from consideration unless the accused demonstrates that the omission has actually and materially prejudiced him or resulted in failure of justice. The accused bears the burden of showing prejudice, although in appropriate facts prejudice may be inferred. Prior authorities were reviewed to emphasize that defective questioning only vitiates conviction where prejudice or miscarriage of justice is shown. [Paras 12, 16, 18, 19, 20]Omission to put incriminating evidence under Section 313 CrPC does not automatically invalidate conviction; exclusion or remedial relief depends on whether prejudice to the accused is shown.Appellate powers to examine counsel or remit for retrial under Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - remand for re-recording of statement from the stage of Section 313 questioning - Remedial powers of the appellate court when Section 313 CrPC has not been complied with. - HELD THAT: - The Court explained the appellate court's options where material incriminatory circumstances were not put to the accused: (i) to examine the convict or call upon the accused's counsel to explain the omitted circumstance and take such answers into account; (ii) to decide the appeal on merits if no prejudice is found; (iii) to remit the matter to the trial court for re-recording the accused's statement and, if necessary, retrial from that stage where prejudice is established or likely; and (iv) to decline remand in exceptional cases where remand would be unjust (for example, due to excessive delay or sentence already undergone). The appellate power to order retrial flows from its statutory powers and serves to correct trial court omission without automatically penalising the prosecution. [Paras 23, 24, 27, 30]Appellate court may examine the accused or counsel, decide on merits if no prejudice is shown, or remit for re-recording under Section 313 and retrial from that stage where prejudice is established or likely; remand may be refused in exceptional circumstances.Remand for re-recording of statement from the stage of Section 313 questioning - right to speedy trial and judicial discretion in ordering remand - Application of the legal principle to the present case - whether conviction should be sustained or matter remitted for fresh Section 313 examination. - HELD THAT: - On the facts, the trial court and High Court relied upon the Forensic Science Laboratory report (Ext. P-12) and the ballistic opinion, which had not been put to the accused under Section 313. Although the objection was first raised before this Court and the accused has been in custody for an extended period, the Court found that the omission caused prejudice to the accused to some extent. Balancing the accused's right to speedy trial against the interest of justice and victims, the Court concluded that acquittal was not warranted but that the proper remedy is to set aside the conviction and remit the matter for fresh examination of the accused under Section 313 CrPC and consequent proceedings. Directions were given to the trial court to frame specific questions, allow the accused to examine defence witnesses if any, and to expedite disposal preferably within six months; liberty to move for bail was also granted. [Paras 32, 33, 34, 35]Conviction set aside and matter remitted to the trial court for fresh recording of the accused's statement under Section 313 CrPC and further proceedings; trial court directed to expedite disposal and consider any bail application.Final Conclusion: The Supreme Court held that failure to put incriminating circumstances to the accused under Section 313 CrPC does not automatically vitiate conviction; prejudice must be shown or inferred. The appellate court may examine counsel, decide on merits, or remit for re-recording and retrial where prejudice exists. Applying these principles, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, remitted the case to the trial court to re-record the accused's statement under Section 313 CrPC and proceed afresh (with a direction to conclude preferably within six months) and granted liberty to apply for bail. Issues Involved1. Conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 25(1B) of the Arms Act.2. Non-compliance with Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).Issue-wise Detailed AnalysisConviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 25(1B) of the Arms ActThe prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence. The key circumstances relied upon were:- Motive: Evidence from PW-8, the mother of the deceased, indicated a long-standing grudge due to an incident 18 years ago involving the death of the accused's father, which the accused's family blamed on the deceased.- Eyewitness Testimony: PW-11 testified seeing the accused running in the street and hearing a gunshot at the time of the incident.- Recovery of Weapon: Based on the accused's disclosure, a country-made pistol was recovered from his house.- Forensic Evidence: The post-mortem report (Ex P-13) and the Ballistic Expert's opinion (Ex P-12) confirmed that the bullet recovered from the deceased's brain was fired from the recovered pistol.Both the trial court and the High Court found these circumstances formed a complete chain establishing the guilt of the accused, leading to his conviction.Non-compliance with Section 313 CrPCThe main contention of the appellant was that the incriminating evidence, particularly the Ballistic Expert's report (Ex P-12), was not put to him during his examination under Section 313 CrPC. This section mandates that the accused must be given an opportunity to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. The appellant argued that this non-compliance vitiated the trial and conviction.The court examined the object and importance of Section 313 CrPC, emphasizing that it is a procedural safeguard for the accused, ensuring they are aware of and can respond to the evidence against them. The court noted that non-compliance with this section does not automatically vitiate the trial unless it is shown that the omission caused material prejudice to the accused.Judicial Precedents and Legal PrinciplesThe court referred to several precedents, including:- Basava R. Patil v. State of Karnataka: Highlighted that the purpose of Section 313 is to benefit the accused and ensure a fair trial.- Santosh Kumar Singh v. State through CBI: Held that omission to put incriminating circumstances to the accused does not ipso facto vitiate the trial unless prejudice is shown.- State of Punjab v. Hari Singh: Affirmed that failure to put vital evidence to the accused can lead to acquittal if it causes prejudice.Remand for Re-trialThe court concluded that the omission to put the Ballistic Expert's report to the accused caused prejudice. However, rather than acquitting the accused, the court decided to set aside the conviction and remand the case back to the trial court for fresh proceedings from the stage of recording the accused's statement under Section 313 CrPC. The trial court was directed to expedite the matter and dispose of it within six months.ConclusionThe appeal was disposed of with the conviction set aside and the case remanded for re-trial from the stage of Section 313 CrPC examination. The accused was given the liberty to apply for bail, which the trial court was directed to consider in accordance with the law. The court made it clear that it expressed no opinion on the merits of the case.