Section 313 CrPC disclosure of incriminating circumstances is essential; conviction failed when omitted facts caused prejudice.

In criminal trial, material incriminating circumstances must be specifically put to the accused in examination under Section 313 CrPC so that an explanation can be offered; omission to do so, where prejudice is shown, is a serious irregularity. Here, the prosecution relied on the railway receipt standing in the accused's name and his enquiry about the parcels, but those facts were not distinctly put to him. Once those unput circumstances were excluded, no other connecting material remained to link him with the offence. The SC held that the defect was not curable on the facts, the conviction could not be sustained, and the accused was entitled to acquittal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the material circumstances relied upon by the prosecution were specifically put to the accused in his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (ii) Whether the conviction could be sustained when the only incriminating circumstances against the accused were not so put and no other connecting material remained.

Issue (i): Whether the material circumstances relied upon by the prosecution were specifically put to the accused in his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The prosecution relied on two incriminating circumstances: that the railway receipt for the contraband parcels stood in the accused's name and that he had enquired about the parcels at the railway station. These circumstances were not specifically and distinctly put to the accused in his Section 313 examination. The purpose of that examination is to enable the accused to explain each material circumstance appearing in evidence against him, and omission to do so amounts to a serious irregularity when prejudice is shown.

Conclusion: The material circumstances were not properly put to the accused, and the omission was material.

Issue (ii): Whether the conviction could be sustained when the only incriminating circumstances against the accused were not so put and no other connecting material remained.

Analysis: Once the unput circumstances were excluded from consideration, nothing remained on record to connect the accused with the offence. In the facts of the case, the lapse caused serious prejudice to the defence, and a fresh examination at such a distant stage was found inappropriate. The defect was not treated as curable on the facts, and the conviction could not stand.

Conclusion: The conviction was unsustainable and the accused was entitled to acquittal.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded as against the present appellant, and the conviction and sentence were set aside only in his case.

Ratio Decidendi: Material incriminating circumstances must be specifically put to the accused under Section 313; where the omission causes prejudice and no other evidence remains to sustain guilt, the conviction cannot be maintained.

---