2008 (7) TMI 1081 - SC - Indian Laws

Murder - Challenge the judgment of a learned Single Judge for altered the conviction to Section 304 Part II - What is the object of examination of an accused u/s 313 of the Code? - HELD THAT - The section itself declares the object in explicit language that it is for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him . In Jai Dev v. State of Punjab 1962 (7) TMI 38 - SUPREME COURT Gajendragadkar J. (as he then was) speaking for a three-Judge Bench has focussed on the ultimate test in determining whether the provision has been fairly complied with. It is well settled that the provision is mainly intended to benefit the accused and as its corollary to benefit the court in reaching the final conclusion. At the same time it should be borne in mind that the provision is not intended to nail him to any position but to comply with the most salutary principle of natural justice enshrined in the maxim audi alteram partem. The word may in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) in Section 313 of the Code indicates without any doubt that even if the court does not put any question under that clause the accused cannot raise any grievance for it. But if the court fails to put the needed question under Clause (b) of the sub-section it would result in a handicap to the accused and he can legitimately claim that no evidence without affording him the opportunity to explain can be used against him. It is now well settled that a circumstance about which the accused was not asked to explain cannot be used against him. In certain cases when there is perfunctory examination u/s 313 of the Code the matter is remanded to the trial Court with a direction to re-try from the stage at which the prosecution was closed. In the instant case the questions put to the accused in his examination u/s 313 read as follows The witnesses have stated in their evidence that at about 9.30 a.m. on the day of occurrence you caused severe injuries to Khairul Hoque by assaulting him on the head from behind with a piece of timber and that in the evening on the very day he succumbed to the injuries in Guwahati Medical College Hospital. You may say if you have any regarding the evidence. P.W. 10 Ahindra Kumar Kalita (S.I. of Police) has stated in his evidence that during his investigation into this case when you produced a piece of timber he seized it through Ext.4. You may say if you have any regarding this evidence. You may say if you have any as regards allegation of committing murder leveled against you and other evidence. You may adduce evidence in defence if you have any. Summon witnesses. As rightly contended by learned Counsel for the appellant no witness has stated that on the date of occurrence the accused had caused severe injury to the deceased by assaulting him on the head from behind. The circumstances which were relied upon by the trial Court to find the accused guilty were not specifically brought to the notice of the accused. Therefore in essence his examination u/s 313 of the Code was rendered an empty formality. On that count alone the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and is set aside. The conviction recorded stands set aside. The bail bond of the appellant who is on bail shall stand discharged. The appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC.
2. Alteration of conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC by the High Court.
3. Examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. Sufficiency and nature of evidence presented by the prosecution.
5. Adequacy of questioning under Section 313 and its impact on the accused's right to a fair trial.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC:
The appellant was initially convicted by the Learned District and Sessions Judge, Kamrup, under Section 304 Part I of the IPC for causing the death of the deceased with a piece of wood, resulting in a 10-year rigorous imprisonment sentence and a fine of Rs. 200/-.

2. Alteration of Conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC by the High Court:
The High Court partially allowed the appeal, altering the conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC and reducing the sentence to 5 years of rigorous imprisonment. The High Court observed that although the trial court's examination under Section 313 was flawed, it did not cause material prejudice to the accused.

3. Examination of the Accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The Supreme Court scrutinized the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code. It was found that the trial court did not adequately bring the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution to the notice of the accused, rendering his examination an "empty formality." This failure was deemed a serious irregularity that vitiated the trial.

4. Sufficiency and Nature of Evidence Presented by the Prosecution:
The prosecution presented circumstantial evidence and testimonies from various witnesses, including the informant (PW-1), an eye witness (PW-5), and the doctor who conducted the autopsy (PW-7). The trial court found seven circumstantial pieces of evidence proving the guilt of the accused, including the accused's quarrel with the deceased, threats, and absconding post-crime.

5. Adequacy of Questioning under Section 313 and Its Impact on the Accused's Right to a Fair Trial:
The Supreme Court emphasized that each material circumstance must be specifically, distinctly, and separately put to the accused during the examination under Section 313. Failure to do so prejudices the accused's right to a fair trial. The Court noted that the trial court's questions were broadly formulated and did not cover the specific circumstances relied upon for conviction. This inadequacy led to the setting aside of the High Court's judgment.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and the judgment of the High Court. It was held that the trial court's failure to properly examine the accused under Section 313 of the Code resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The appellant's bail bond was discharged, and the conviction was nullified.