Circumstantial evidence and Section 313 fairness: conviction failed without a reliable last-seen link and proper questioning of the accused.

A conviction based on circumstantial evidence cannot stand unless each incriminating circumstance is clearly established and put fairly to the accused under Section 313. The first appellant's conviction was set aside because the evidence did not show that he was last seen with the deceased near the time of death, and the alleged motive was unsupported by the record. The second appellant's trial was vitiated because the Section 313 questioning was lengthy, composite, and not framed in a clear or separate manner, causing prejudice and denying a fair opportunity to explain the circumstances. The matter was remanded for fresh proceedings from the Section 313 stage.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the conviction of the first appellant could be sustained on the basis of the evidence of last seen together and alleged motive; (ii) whether the examination of the second appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was so defective as to vitiate the trial and require remand.

Issue (i): whether the conviction of the first appellant could be sustained on the basis of the evidence of last seen together and alleged motive.

Analysis: The prosecution evidence did not establish that the first appellant was last seen with the deceased at or near the time of death. The witnesses, taken together, at best showed the second appellant in the company of the deceased. The first appellant was only shown to have followed the deceased earlier, which was insufficient to connect him with the homicidal act. The asserted motive also did not support his implication, because the prosecution version itself suggested that he had informed the deceased about the second appellant's alleged relationship and there was no material to show any animus on his part against the deceased.

Conclusion: The conviction of the first appellant could not be sustained and was liable to be set aside in his favour.

Issue (ii): whether the examination of the second appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was so defective as to vitiate the trial and require remand.

Analysis: The questions put to the second appellant were lengthy, composite, and not framed in a simple or separate manner so as to make each incriminating circumstance intelligible to him. The record did not show a proper answer on whether he understood Bengali, though the questions were recorded in Bengali and a Hindi translation was said to have been used. The translated version was not brought on record. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, the accused must be given a fair and effective opportunity to explain each material circumstance, and the defect in the examination caused prejudice.

Conclusion: The trial against the second appellant was vitiated to the extent indicated and the matter was required to be remanded for fresh proceedings from the stage of Section 313 examination.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in part: the first appellant was acquitted, while the proceedings against the second appellant were set aside and remitted for retrial from the stage of Section 313 examination.

Ratio Decidendi: In a case based on circumstantial evidence, each incriminating circumstance must be put clearly and separately to the accused under Section 313, and where the questioning is unintelligible or causes prejudice, the conviction cannot stand; further, a conviction cannot rest on a mere or unsupported last-seen circumstance without a reliable link to the accused sought to be implicated.

---