Statements of accused and co-accused mere carbon copies of each other - Non-compliance with Section 313

Supreme Court Orders Retrial Due to Non-Compliance with Section 313 CrPC in Chandan Pasi Case. Apex Court Remands Case for Re-examination of Accused Under Section 313, Citing Prejudice and Procedural Irregularity

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has overturned the convictions of Chandan Pasi and two other co-accused in a murder case, ordering a retrial due to non-compliance with Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which mandates the examination of the accused. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, highlighted the critical role of Section 313 CrPC in ensuring a fair trial.

The case, originating from a 2016 incident where the accused were found guilty of murdering Ghughali Pasi, saw the trial court and the High Court of Patna uphold life sentences. However, the Supreme Court identified that the procedure under Section 313 was inadequately followed, leading to a decision that vitiated the trial. The Court emphasized that the accused were not given a fair opportunity to respond to incriminating circumstances presented against them, with their statements being mere carbon copies lacking any substantial engagement with the evidence.

The judgment noted the prosecutor's failure to assist the court in conducting a fair examination under Section 313, which was seen as a serious lapse in the duty of ensuring justice. The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the trial court, directing it to recommence proceedings from the stage of recording statements under Section 313 CrPC. The Court stipulated that this process must be completed within four months, considering the trial's extended timeline since the original crime in 2016.

This decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding procedural fairness in criminal trials and the importance of Section 313 CrPC as a non-negotiable aspect of justice. The Court's directive aims to rectify the procedural irregularities and provide the accused an opportunity to adequately defend themselves against the charges.

Bottom Line:

Compliance with Section 313 CrPC is mandatory and must enable the accused to explain every incriminating circumstance appearing against them in the evidence. Failure to comply with this provision vitiates the trial and prejudices the accused.

Statutory provision(s): Section 313 CrPC, Section 302/34 IPC, Section 448 IPC, Section 323 IPC

Chandan Pasi v. State of Bihar, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2815812