Section 313 CrPC omissions need shown prejudice before they can affect trial validity or disturb an acquittal.

Section 313 CrPC examination must give the accused a real opportunity to explain incriminating circumstances, and an omission to put a vital circumstance does not by itself vitiate the trial unless prejudice is shown. A substantial compliance approach is permissible where the accused was not deprived of a fair chance to respond. Here, the confessional foundation of the prosecution case was not specifically put to the accused, but the defect was not treated as causing such infirmity as to justify interference with the High Court's acquittal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the omission to put the incriminating materials and the foundation of the prosecution case to the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vitiated the trial and justified interference with the acquittal.

Analysis: The provision for examination of the accused is intended to afford a real opportunity to explain circumstances appearing in the evidence against him and is rooted in the principle of natural justice. Omission to put a vital circumstance does not automatically nullify the trial, but the accused must show prejudice. In a proper case, a substantial compliance approach is permissible, and the appellate court may examine whether the accused was in fact deprived of a fair opportunity to explain the incriminating material. On the facts, the alleged confessional foundation of the prosecution was not specifically put to the accused, and that defect was material.

Conclusion: The omission caused no infirmity warranting interference with the High Court's decision to acquit.

---