'Statements Carbon Copies, Generic' : Supreme Court Sets Aside Sentence For Non-Compliance With S. 313 CrPC; Orders Re-Trial

The Supreme Court on Monday (December 1) set aside the life sentences of three individuals in a murder case and remanded the matter to the trial court for a fresh trial from the stage of recording statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., noting that the accused had not been given a proper opportunity to respond to each allegation against them.

“One of the non-negotiable requirements of a fair trial is that the accused persons should have ample opportunity to dispel the case and claims of the prosecution against them. This ample opportunity can take many forms, whether it is adequate representation through counsel or the opportunity to call witnesses to present their side of the case or to have the occasion to answer each and every allegation against them, on their own, in their own words. The last one happens under Section 313 CrPC.”, observed a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh while setting aside the Patna High Court's decision which upheld the trial court's decision of convicting the Appellants in gross non-compliance with statutory requirements of Section 313 CrPC, which the Court held amounted to a serious violation of fair-trial guarantees.

Aggrieved by the High Court's decision to uphold their conviction, the three convicts approached the Supreme Court, primarily arguing non-compliance with Section 313 CrPC.

The Court found serious procedural defects such as the questions posed to the accused were generic, superficial, and formulaic, all three statements were carbon copies, indicating mechanical examination, only two out of four questions touched upon the prosecution allegations, and no specific incriminating evidence, circumstances, or witness testimony was put to the accused.

The Court observed that the statements showed a "sorry state of affairs" in the trial.

“The statements given by all three persons are carbon copies of each other. How such statements can pass muster at the hands of the learned Trial Judge is something which we fail to understand. Out of the four questions asked, directly related to the sequence of events, were only two. The second question was as general as can be, with reference to only the bare allegations, to which an omnibus denial was issued. The third was also of similar nature, saying that it has been alleged and evidenced, and nothing further. This cannot be said to be the putting of every material circumstance.”, the court said.

The Court termed the non-compliance with Section 313 CrPC as “an abject failure on the part of the (Trial) Court in complying with the basic tenets of law.”

Prosecution Must Not All Time Seek Conviction At All Cost, Should Act In Interest Of Justice

Further, the Court expressed dissatisfaction towards the biased the role of the prosecution, emphasizing the role of the prosecution is not always to seek conviction at all costs, but as an officer of a Court it is their solemn duty to act in the interest of justice.

“It is equally disturbing for us to see that in the desire to secure a conviction for the accused persons, the prosecutor also let their duty of assisting the Court in conducting the examination of the accused under this section fall by the wayside. The prosecutor is an officer of the Court and holds a solemn duty to act in the interest of justice. They cannot act as a defence lawyer, but for the State, with the sole aim of making the gauntlet of punishment fall on the accused.”, the court observed, referencing Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. State of U.P.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, with a direction to the concerned Trial Court to recommence from the state of the recording of the Section 313 CrPC statements.

Cause Title: CHANDAN PASI & ORS. VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1157

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mrs. Anjana Prakash, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anuj Prakash, Adv. Mr. Niraj Dubey, Adv. Mr. Pradum Kumar, Adv. Mr. Kumar Mihir, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Azmat Hayat Amanullah, AOR Ms. Rebecca Mishra, Adv.