Statements Carbon Copies Of Each Other : Supreme Court Sets Aside Life Sentences For Non-Compliance With S. 313 CrPC, Orders Fresh Trial
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh on Monday, December 1, set aside the life sentences of three persons convicted in a murder case and remanded the case to the trial court to resume from the stage of recording their statements under Section 313 CrPC, noting that they had not been given an adequate opportunity to respond to each allegation. The case concerns the alleged killing of the informant’s father and related assaults on his relatives, with the remand confined to the three appellants and the findings against the other accused left undisturbed.
On 31 March 2016, the informant, along with his father, mother and sister-in-law, was returning from agricultural fields when several accused allegedly surrounded them and fired at the informant’s father with a country-made firearm, causing his death. The prosecution further alleged that some accused later entered the informant’s house, verbally abused family members and assaulted his niece, another child relative and nephew. Based on this evidence, the trial court convicted six accused for offences under Sections 302/34, 448, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, while a seventh accused was treated as a juvenile under the applicable law.
All convicted persons challenged the judgment before the High Court in appeals under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which were dismissed, affirming the trial court’s findings. The three appellants then approached the Supreme Court, contending primarily that there had been non-compliance with Section 313 CrPC, as the full incriminating material arising from the prosecution evidence had not been put to them and they were not given an adequate opportunity to answer each specific allegation. The State defended the concurrent findings, relying on the recorded witness depositions and the trial court’s appreciation of the evidence.
The Court observed that “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.”
The Court, referring to Sanatan Naskar v. State of W.B., (2010) 8 SCC 249, observed that “The answers by an accused under Section 313 CrPC are of relevance for finding out the truth and examining the veracity of the case of the prosecution. The scope of Section 313 CrPC is wide and is not a mere formality.” It further quoted that “The primary purpose is to establish a direct dialogue between the court and the accused and to put every important incriminating piece of evidence to the accused and grant him an opportunity to answer and explain.”
Assessing the present case, the Court remarked that “The statements extracted above reveal a sorry state of affairs- an abject failure on the part of the Court in complying with the basic tenets of law. 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.” It added that “Out of the four questions asked, directly related to the sequence of events, were only two.” and concluded that “This cannot be said to be the putting of every material circumstance.”
On prosecutorial conduct, relying on Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 351, the Court recorded that “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 directed: “In view of the above observations, we need not delve into the other grounds raised, questioning the concurrent conviction against the appellants herein. On this ground alone, the Appeals are allowed and the matter is sent back to the concerned Trial Court to recommence from the state of the recording of the Section 313 CrPC statements. We may clarify that the remand is limited to the cases of the three appellants before us and our observations herein shall not affect the sanctity of the findings already arrived at, qua the other accused persons. A trial is a function of memory; it is this memory that, when translated into spoken word testimony on oath, becomes evidence, and thus the same is susceptible to the vagaries of time. Keeping in view the fact that the offence is from the year 2016, and while being cognizant of the observations of the Constitution Bench in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P.11, we direct the concerned Trial Court to do the needful within four months from the date of the communication of this judgment.”
“Registrar (Judicial) to communicate this judgment and order to the learned Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Patna, who will forthwith communicate the same to the concerned court for necessary action and compliance.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mrs. Anjana Prakash, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anuj Prakash, Adv. Mr. Niraj Dubey, Adv. Mr. Pradum Kumar, Adv. Mr. Kumar Mihir, AOR
For the Respondents: Mr. Azmat Hayat Amanullah, AOR Ms. Rebecca Mishra, Adv.
Case Title: Chandan Pasi & Ors. v. The State of the Bihar
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1371
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No (s). 5137-5138 OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No (s). 3685-3686 of 2025)
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
