Punjab and Haryana High Court finds serious lapses in compliance with Section 313 CrPC, orders fresh trial in the State of Haryana v. Vinod @ Munna case.
In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered a retrial in the high-profile case of State of Haryana v. Vinod @ Munna, where the accused Vinod alias Munna was previously sentenced to death by the trial court. The retrial was necessitated due to substantial procedural lapses during the original trial, particularly concerning the improper examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which is now Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The division bench comprising Justices Anoop Chitkara and Sukhvinder Kaur noted that the trial court failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Section 313 CrPC by not putting all incriminating evidence and circumstances to the accused in a clear and comprehensive manner. This omission was deemed a serious irregularity as it potentially prejudiced the accused, undermining the fairness of the trial.
The case involves the horrific crime committed on the intervening night of December 20/21, 2020, when the accused allegedly abducted, raped, and murdered a five-year-old girl, affectionately referred to as 'Laadli' by the court. The trial court had sentenced Vinod to death after convicting him under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 302 (murder), 376-AB (rape of a minor), and relevant sections of the POCSO Act and SC/ST Act.
Upon reviewing the trial court proceedings, the High Court found that several critical pieces of evidence, including DNA reports and statements under Section 164 CrPC, were not adequately addressed to the accused. The Court emphasized that such lapses violate the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, which are crucial, especially in cases involving the death penalty.
The judgment highlighted that the trial court's failure to properly question the accused as per Section 313 CrPC could not be overlooked, as it denied the accused a fair opportunity to explain the evidence against him. The High Court, therefore, quashed the conviction and sentence, remanding the case back to the trial court for re-examination of the accused and re-evaluation of the defense evidence.
The High Court directed that the trial be conducted afresh from the stage of recording the statement of the accused under Section 351 BNSS (formerly Section 313 CrPC), ensuring all incriminating evidence is presented in a manner understandable to the accused. The Court also requested the trial court to expedite the proceedings, balancing the need for swift justice with the rights of the accused.
This decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding procedural integrity and ensuring that justice is served, not only for the victim but also for the accused, by adhering to the due process of law.
Bottom Line:
Non-compliance with Section 313 CrPC (now Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) regarding putting all incriminating evidence to the accused amounts to a serious irregularity. The trial court must ensure proper examination of the accused under Section 351 BNSS to prevent prejudice and uphold principles of natural justice.
Statutory provision(s): Section 313 CrPC, Section 351 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 366 CrPC, Section 374(2) CrPC, Section 173 CrPC, Section 235(2) CrPC, Section 164 CrPC, Section 412 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
State of Haryana v. Vinod @ Munna, (Punjab And Haryana)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2841106
