The Supreme Court has held that inadequate and vague examination of accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure constitutes a serious violation of fair trial rights, warranting remand of the matter to the trial court for fresh compliance.
The Bench observed that the statements recorded by the trial court were “carbon copies”, containing only general allegations and omnibus denials, without putting specific incriminating circumstances to the accused. Such a defective process, the Court held, fails the mandate of audi alteram partem, depriving the accused of a meaningful opportunity to explain the evidence.
Holding thus, the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh allowed the appeals and directed the Trial Court to recommence proceedings from the stage of recording statements under Section 313 CrPC within four months. The conviction and sentence of other co-accused, however, remain untouched.
Background
Six persons were convicted for murder under Section 302/34 IPC, along with minor offences under Sections 448 and 323 IPC. The conviction and sentence were affirmed in appeal. Three of the convicts approached the Supreme Court mainly alleging non-compliance with Section 313 CrPC, asserting that they were never given a chance to explain specific evidence used against them.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Court emphasized that:
- Section 313 CrPC creates a direct dialogue between the court and the accused.
- The Court must put every material incriminating circumstance distinctly and separately.
- The primary test is whether the accused truly received an opportunity to explain the case against them.
- Non-compliance can vitiate the trial if prejudice is caused.
- Prosecutors also have a duty to assist the court in proper compliance.
Reviewing the actual statements, the Court found them abjectly inadequate — only four questions were asked, two relating to the incident in a generalized manner, resulting in mere blanket denials by the accused.
Decision
- Appeals allowed.
- Matter remanded to the Trial Court to re-conduct Section 313 CrPC questioning.
- Remand limited only to the three appellants, without affecting the conviction of the other accused.
- Trial Court directed to complete the exercise within four months.
Key Takeaways
- Section 313 examination is not a formality — it is central to a fair trial.
- Courts must avoid generic questions; omission to put material circumstances is a serious irregularity.
- Statements that fail to cover all incriminating evidence prejudice the defence and undermine the conviction.
Case Title: Chandan Pasi & Ors. v. State of Bihar
Citation: 2025 INSC 1371
Date: December 01, 2025
Court: Supreme Court of India