Section 313 omission vitiates conviction when the sole incriminating circumstance was never put to the accused.

A conviction based on a solitary incriminating circumstance must fail if that material was not specifically put to the accused in his Section 313 examination and the omission causes prejudice. The SC held that material relied upon for conviction should ordinarily be put distinctly to the accused so he can explain it, and unput material should not be used against him. Here, the sole basis of conviction was not properly tested under Section 313, causing serious prejudice and failure of justice. Because the lapse went to the root of the conviction and remand would be unjust after the long delay, the conviction and sentence were set aside without remand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction was vitiated because the sole incriminating circumstance against the accused was not specifically put to him in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether the omission caused prejudice warranting setting aside the conviction without remand.

Analysis: The accused was convicted only on the basis of a solitary circumstance from one prosecution witness that he was standing outside with a katta. The evidence of the other witnesses did not establish that circumstance. That incriminating material was not specifically and distinctly put to him in the examination under Section 313, depriving him of an opportunity to explain it. The established rule is that each material circumstance relied upon for conviction must be put to the accused, and material not so put should ordinarily be excluded from consideration. An omission of this kind vitiates the trial if prejudice and failure of justice are shown. Here, the omission went to the sole basis of conviction, and the long lapse of time made remand unjust.

Conclusion: The omission under Section 313 caused serious prejudice and vitiated the conviction; the appeal was allowed and the conviction and sentence were set aside without remand.

Final Conclusion: The accused was entitled to acquittal in this proceeding because the conviction could not stand on an unput and untested incriminating circumstance.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the conviction rests on a material circumstance not specifically put to the accused under Section 313, and the omission causes prejudice and failure of justice, the conviction is vitiated and the appellate court may exclude that material from consideration instead of ordering remand.

---