Failure To Put Crucial DNA Evidence To Accused Vitiates Trial: P&H High Court Sets Aside Death Penalty, Orders Fresh Trial From S. 313 Stage

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside the conviction and death sentence awarded to Vinod alias Munna in a case involving the abduction, rape and murder of a five-year-old girl, on the ground of serious procedural lapses in recording the accused's statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The Court held that failure to put crucial incriminating evidence, including DNA and forensic reports, to the accused caused prejudice and vitiated the trial, necessitating a remand of the case for fresh proceedings from the stage of Section 313 CrPC (now Section 351 BNSS, 2023).The bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur said, "It is not a case where the Trial Court had put all the incriminating circumstances to the accused."The judges conceded that Appellate Court can put the leftover incriminating evidence to an accused or even direct the trial Court to do so. However, "that decision has not to be taken in a mechanical manner but has to be taken after analyzing the remaining incriminating evidence which was put to the accused, the prejudice caused to the accused, the defence setup, and the objections taken during the arguments. Since the accused has a right to examine defence evidence, and the evidence that comes in defence, if any, would also need to be analyzed and appreciated in appeal," it added.Thus, the bench opined that, only option available with the Court to do justice to the accused and the victim and her family is to remand the case back to the Trial Court to begin the trial from the stage of recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC.The incident dates back to the intervening night of December, 2020, coinciding with the victim's fifth birthday. The prosecution alleged that Vinod, a 27-year-old plumber with criminal antecedents, abducted the child from her parents' rented house in Jhajjar, Haryana, took her to his nearby residence, raped her, and smothered her to death.Upon completion of trial, the Sessions Court convicted Vinod and awarded him the death penalty. The trial court also made a reference to the High Court under Section 366 CrPC for confirmation of the death sentence. Vinod, in turn, challenged his conviction and sentence by filing an appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC.The prosecution relied on eyewitness circumstances, medical and forensic evidence, recovery of incriminating articles, and DNA reports. The postmortem report attributed the cause of death to asphyxia due to homicidal smothering and recorded injuries consistent with forcible sexual penetration of both vaginal and anal orifices.DNA, RFSL, and toxicology reports were also tendered in evidence. Statements of the victim's parents were recorded under Section 164 CrPC.High Court's ScrutinyAlthough no specific arguments were advanced by the defence regarding defects in the Section 313 CrPC examination, the High Court, while dictating judgment, noticed serious irregularities.The Court found that the Statements of the victim's parents recorded under Section 164 CrPC were not put to the accused under Section 313 CrPC.The DNA report allegedly linking the accused to the crime was not put to him for explanation and the toxicology report indicating alcohol consumption by the accused was also not put to him.Incriminating material was placed before the accused in an omnibus and incomprehensible manner, including reproduction of entire witness testimonies, contrary to the mandate of Section 313 CrPC which requires putting specific circumstances appearing in evidence.The Bench observed that reading crucial evidence against an accused without giving him an opportunity to explain the same strikes at the very root of a fair trial."The prominent concern for this Court is the manner of investigation, omission in putting all the incriminating evidence to the accused under §313 CrPC, and its repercussions on the trial, and in our considered opinion, it causes prejudice to the accused because to put the entire testimony of PW2 and incorrectly stating that the testimony of PW6 was in similar terms, and to answer such long questions would be incomprehendible for ordinary people," the bench said.The Court observed that, "Criminal Justice warrants meticulously following the procedural standards of proof to pin criminal liability, whereby every 'i' ought to be dotted and every 't' ought to be crossed. The yardstick of a fair criminal trial is the quality of investigation and the conduct of proceedings, as per the gold standards, rather than perfunctory completion or hurried disposal."Emphasis On Fair TrialThe Court reiterated that compliance with Section 313 CrPC is mandatory and not a mere formality, especially in cases involving serious offences and capital punishment. It relied upon a long line of Supreme Court judgments, from Tara Singh v. State (1951) to Chandan Pasi v. State of Bihar (2025), underscoring that affording the accused a meaningful opportunity to explain incriminating circumstances ...

Failure To Put Crucial DNA Evidence To Accused Vitiates Trial: P&H High Court Sets Aside Death Penalty, Orders Fresh Trial From S. 313 Stage

Aiman J. Chishti

Tags