42 Yrs After Alleged Incident, Patna High Court Sets Aside Rioting, Murder Convictions Citing "Perfunctory" Examination Of Accused U/S 313 CrPC

A Division Bench of Justices Sudhir Singh and Chandra Prakash Singh held, “It is trite law that the examination of accused under this section should not be held in a perfunctory manner. The accused must be afforded reasonable opportunity to explain the circumstances appearing against him. Therefore, while examining the accused, trial Court should be mindful of the object underlying this provision.”

“the non-examination of the Investigating Officer undeniably prejudiced the defence of the appellants, as the actual place of occurrence remains unverified, and the appellants have been deprived of the opportunity to challenge the credibility of the prosecution witnesses through questioning of the Investigating Officer. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the failure to examine the Investigating Officer in this case constitutes a significant flaw that has resulted in prejudice to the case,” the bench added.

The above ruling was made in two criminal appeals that were filed in 1996, approximately 27 years ago. Both the appeals had arisen out of a common judgment of conviction and order of sentence, and thus were being heard together.

The case involved a land-use dispute from the year 1980, whereby the informant claimed that several accused parties were allegedly illegally plowing his land and threatening to use violence against him when he objected. An altercation followed, resulting in injuries to the informant and others involved, post which charges were filed against the accused, and they were convicted by the trial court.

After hearing the arguments advanced by the counsels appearing for the parties and upon thorough examination of the entire material available on the record, the Court had to address the following issues in the present appeal:

I. Whether the defective examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C. really prejudiced the accused persons in conveying them as to what was required by them to be explained, thus causing serious prejudice to the defense?

II. Whether the non-examination of the Investigating Officer by the prosecution has resulted in prejudice to the defense of the appellants?

The Court, in addressing the first issue, emphasized the importance of conducting a thorough examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. It stressed that this examination should not be merely a formality but should instead provide the accused with a reasonable opportunity to explain the circumstances against them.

The Court cited Supreme Court judgments that underscored the significance of this provision, highlighting that it grants accused individuals the right to establish their innocence.

Even assuming that any defects or irregularities could be rectified, the key consideration before the Court was whether the appellants-accused could reasonably be expected to clarify the mentioned circumstances at this point.

The Court firmly asserted, “Over 42 years have elapsed since the incident occurred. Given the significant passage of time, it would be unjust to compel the appellants, at this advanced stage, to revisit the case and provide further statements under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Considering the specifics of the case, it is unreasonable to demand answers pertaining to an event that transpired 42 years ago ”

“Therefore, in the light of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and from appreciation of evidence on record, this Court has come to the conclusion that the appellants have been denied a fair opportunity to defend their case and thereby a prejudice has been caused to the appellants, that would be no doubt a serious infirmity,” the Court added.

As a result, the Court decided the first issue in the affirmative.

Moving on to the second matter, the Court noted that the investigating officer involved in the case was not brought in for examination.

The Court emphasized that it is a trite principle of law that the mere omission to examine the Investigating Officer does not automatically favor the accused unless it can be demonstrated that such omission has harmed the accused's case.

However, the Court further pointed out that, in this particular situation, none of the prosecution witnesses had mentioned in their statements that the Investigating Officer (I.O.) had conducted an inspection of the crime scene.

The Court noted that the judgment indicated that the I.O. had indeed inspected the scene and recorded witness statements, and a prosecution witness (PW 5) had testified that there was blood at the location of the incident.

“Thus, it becomes relevant to examine the I.O. of the case to elicit the incriminating material, which has been gathered against the appellants during investigation and the mode thereof. Also, during the trial, prosecution witnesses admitted that the appellants had filed a counter case relating to the same occurrence against them. However, they consistently denied that the appellants had suffered any injuries during the occurrence,” the Court observed.

Consequently, the Court concluded that examining the Investigating Officer was essential to establish the accuracy of the incident, as the officer could have provided essential information concerning the counter-case and whether the appellants had sustained injuries during the same event.

Further, the Court noted that due to non-examination, the appellants had also been deprived of the opportunity to bring on record the material contradictions and improvement made by the witnesses in their depositions.

The Court stressed, “Therefore, in such circumstances, the examination of the Investigating Officer becomes important as he would have been the most competent witness to throw light on the manner in which the investigation was carried out and to explain the entire gamut of evidence brought on record. However, the prosecution has, without any explanation, not examined the Investigating Officer of this case which has caused prejudice to the case of the defence and is fatal to the case of prosecution.”

In this context, the Court cited relevant legal precedents and reached the conclusion that in the present case, the non-examination of the Investigating Officer undeniably prejudiced the defense of the appellants, as the actual place of occurence remained unverified, and the appellants were deprived of the opportunity to challenge the credibility of the prosecution witnesses through questioning of the Investigating Officer.

Hence, according to the Court's considered opinion, the failure to examine the Investigating Officer in this case constitutes a significant flaw that has detrimentally impacted the case. Consequently, issue number two was also decided in favor of the appellants.

In light of these findings, the Patna High Court allowed the present criminal appeal, setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Since the appellants were on bail, they were discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds.

Counsel/s For the Appellant/s : Mr. Amish Kumar, Advocate Mr. Shankar Kumar Choudhary, Mr. K.C. Jha, Advocate Mr. P. Thakur, Advocate Mr. Rajan Prakash, Advocate Mr. Lal Babu Singh, Advocate

Counsel/s Respondent/s: Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, APP

LL Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Pat) 116

Case Title: Rambilash Mahto and Others vs. The State of Bihar

Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.111 of 1996

Click Here To Read/Download Order