REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1471 of 2023 

[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.11256 of 2018]

Raj Kumar @ Suman …..Appellant

Versus

State (NCT of Delhi)             …..Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Abhay S. Oka, J.

1. Leave granted. 

FACTUAL ASPECTS

2. Appellant   (accused   no.2)   was   convicted   by

the  Sessions Court  by the Judgment  dated 27

th

August   2003   for   the   offences   punishable   under

Section 302 read with Section 120­B of the Indian

Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256 of 2018

Page 1 of 33

Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’).  For the offence under

Section   302,   the   appellant   was   sentenced   to

undergo life imprisonment.  He was also convicted

for the offence punishable under Section 307 read

with   Section   120­B   of   IPC,   for   which   he   was

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7

years.  

3. The   allegation   against   this   accused,   along

with one Vimal (since deceased) and five others,

was that on 01

st

 October 1995, around 03:30 pm,

they conspired to criminally intimidate and commit

the murder of Jawahar Lal (PW­3) and his relatives.

The allegation is that PW­3 was running his own

cable TV network, and the accused wanted him to

stop the said cable TV network.  The allegation of

the prosecution is that on 01

st

  October 1995 at

about 03:30 pm, the accused entered the house of

PW­3 Jawahar Lal where he, along with his family

members, were residing.  Accused nos.4 and 5 fired

Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256 of 2018

Page 2 of 33

bullets from their revolvers at Omi Devi, mother of

PW­3 and Chander Shekhar (deceased – brother of

PW­3).  Accused no.3 and deceased Vimal attacked

Chander Shekhar (deceased) and Omi with daggers

and   knives.     PW­3   and   PW­7   suffered   serious

injuries.  As noted earlier, Chander Shekhar died.

We may note that admittedly the only allegation

against the present appellant (accused no.2) is that

while 6 other accused entered the house of PW­3,

the appellant was standing near the gate of the

gallery with  katta  (country­made handgun) in his

hand.  By the impugned judgment, the High Court

has confirmed the conviction of the appellant.

SUBMISSIONS

4. The   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the

appellant pointed out that only PW­5 Ved Prakash

deposed that the appellant was standing near the

gate of the gallery with katta in his hand.  However,

PW­3, in the cross­examination, accepted that he

Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256 of 2018

Page 3 of 33

had not seen the present appellant on the day of

the incident and his name was told to him by PW­5.

Learned counsel submitted that though the High

Court, in paragraph 84 of the impugned judgment,

has recorded a finding that even PW­13 had seen

the   appellant,   in   fact,   PW­13   has   not   deposed

anything about the appellant.

5. He   submitted   that   the   only   circumstance

appearing in the evidence against the appellant that

he was standing outside near the gate of the gallery

with a  katta was not put to him in his statement

under   Section   313   of   the   Code   of   Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘CrPC’).  He submitted

that   this   argument   was   specifically   canvassed

before the High Court, which finds a place in the

written   submissions   filed   on   behalf   of   the

appellants, but the High Court did not consider it.

He relied upon decisions of this Court in the case of

Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256 of 2018

Page 4 of 33

Ranvir Yadav v. State of Bihar

1

; Sukhjit Singh

v. State of Punjab

2

; Maheshwar Tigga v. State

of Jharkhand

3

; and Samsul Haque v.  State of

Assam

4

.     He  submitted   that  as   a   result   of   the

failure   of   the   Trial   Court   to   put   the   only

circumstance   appearing   against   the   appellant

during his examination under Section 313 of CrPC,

grave prejudice has been caused to the appellant

resulting in failure of justice.

6. Learned   counsel   representing   the

respondent­State submitted that the appellant did

not cross­examine PW­5.  He relied upon a decision

of this Court in the case of Satyavir Singh Rathi,

Assistant   Commissioner   of   Police   &   Ors.  v.

State through Central Bureau of Investigation

5

.

He submitted that in this decision, this Court held

1 (2009) 6 SCC 595

2 (2014) 10 SCC 270

3 (2020) 10 SCC 108

4 (2019) 18 SCC 161

5 (2011) 6 SCC 1.

Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256 of 2018

Page 5 of 33

that the objection regarding the omission or defect

in recording the statement under Section 313, CrPC

must be raised at the earliest so that the defect can

be cured.   He submitted that the said contention

was   raised   16   years   after   the   passing   of   the

judgment by the Trial Court.  He would, therefore,

submit that, at this stage, this objection cannot be

sustained.  He submitted that the very fact that the

said objection was not raised at any time earlier

shows   that   there   is   no  prejudice   caused   to  the

appellant due to the failure of the Court to put the

only   circumstance   against   the   appellant   to   him

while recording his statement under Section 313,

CrPC. 

OUR VIEW

7. We have considered the submissions.  There

is no dispute that the only allegation against the

appellant was that while six accused entered the

Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256 of 2018

Page 6 of 33

house of PW­3, the appellant was standing outside

with a katta in his hand.  In paragraph 84 of the

impugned judgment, the High Court has observed

that the evidence of PW­3, as regards the appellant,

creates some doubt.  However, it was held that the

evidence of PW­5 and PW­13 is clear and consistent

as regards his involvement.   We have, therefore,

perused the evidence of the said three prosecution

witnesses.   PW­3 Jawahar Lal deposed about the

entry of 6 other accused into his house at about

03:30 pm on 01

st

 October 1995.  He did not depose

that   the   appellant   was   standing   outside   with   a

katta in his hand.  In further examination­in­chief,

he stated that in his statement recorded by the

police, he has wrongly mentioned that the accused­

Rajinder Kumar was guarding the spot.  He stated

that it was the appellant who was guarding the

spot.  The High Court has expressed doubt about

the version of PW­3 concerning the involvement of

Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256 of 2018

Page 7 of 33

the present appellant.   The reason given by the

High Court is that PW­3 also stated that on the day

of the incident, he did not see the appellant, but his

name   was   told   to   him   by   PW­5   Ved   Prakash.

Therefore, the testimony of PW­3 cannot be relied

upon to implicate the appellant.  

8. We have carefully perused the evidence of

PW­13.  Though the High Court has observed that

PW­13   has   ascribed   a   role   to   the   appellant   of

standing outside with a katta in his hand, we find

that PW­13 has made no such statement in his

evidence.  

9. Thus, what remains is the evidence of PW­5.

All that he stated in his examination­in­chief was

that he saw Raj Kumar standing at the gate of the

gallery with a katta in his hand.  He identified the

appellant in the Court. 

10.Hence,   the   only   circumstance   brought   on

record   against   the   present   appellant   is   in   the

Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256 of 2018

Page 8 of 33

evidence of PW­5, who stated that the appellant

was standing outside near the gate of the gallery

with   a  katta  in   his   hand.     No   overt   act   was

attributed to him.  There is a long statement of the

appellant under Section 313 of CrPC in which as

many as 42 questions were put to the appellant.

Question   no.13   is   about   what   PW­5   deposed.

Admittedly, it was not put to the appellant that it is

brought on record that he was standing outside

near the gate of the gallery with a katta in his hand.

It is true that the answer given by him to every

question is “I don’t know”.  If all the circumstances

put to the appellant in his statement under Section

313   CrPC   are   carefully   perused,   any   person   of

ordinary intelligence will get the impression that

none   of   the   prosecution   witnesses   has   stated

anything against him.  That is why one cannot find

fault with the appellant when he gave standard

answers   to   every   question   as   nothing   adverse

Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256 of 2018

Page 9 of 33

against him was put to him.  We may note here that

in paragraph 13 of the written submissions by the

appellant   before   the   High   Court,   a   specific

contention was raised that the only circumstance

appearing against the appellant was not put to him

in the statement under Section 313 of CrPC.  It is

not in dispute that this part of the argument is not

considered by the High Court.  We may also note

that   the   Trial   Court   has   not   reproduced   the

submissions   made   by   the   learned   counsel

appearing for the accused.  

11.Thus, we will have to proceed on the footing

that   the  only  alleged  incriminating  circumstance

appearing   against   the   appellant   in   the   evidence

produced by the prosecution has not been put to

him in his statement under Section 313 of CrPC

and, therefore, he had no opportunity to explain the

said   circumstance.     Moreover,   his   conviction   is

based only on this circumstance. 

Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256 of 2018

Page 10 of 33

12.Therefore, we will have to consider the effect

of the aforesaid omission on the part of the Trial

Court.   The law on this aspect is no longer  res

integra.   Apart from the decisions relied upon by

the learned counsel representing the parties, there

are other important decisions on this aspect.  The

first relevant judgment is of a Bench of four Hon’ble

Judges of this Court in the case of Tara Singh v.

State

6

.     The   Court   considered   the   provision   of

Section   342   of   the   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure,

1898 (for short, ‘CrPC of 1898’). Section 313 of

CrPC and Section 342 of CrPC of 1898 are in pari

materia.  In paragraph 18, this Court held thus : 

“18. It   is   important   therefore   that   an

accused   should   be   properly   examined

under   Section   342   and,   as   their

Lordships of the Privy Council indicated

in Dwarkanath

Varma v. Emperor [Dwarkanath

Varma v. Emperor, AIR 1933 PC 124 at

p. 130 : 1933 SCC OnLine PC 11] , if a

point in the evidence is considered

6 1951 SCC OnLine SC 49

Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256 of 2018

Page 11 of 33

important   against   the   accused   and

the   conviction   is   intended   to   be

based upon it, then it is right and

proper   that   the   accused   should   be

questioned about the matter and be

given an opportunity of explaining it

if he so desires. This is an important

and salutary provision and I cannot

permit it to be slurred over. I regret to

find that in many cases scant attention

is paid to it, particularly in the Sessions

Courts. But whether the matter arises

in the Sessions Court or in that of the

Committing Magistrate, it is important

that   the   provisions   of   Section   342

should be fairly and faithfully observed.”

(emphasis added)

Again in paragraph 23, this Court held thus:

“23. Section 342 requires the accused

to   be   examined   for   the   purpose   of

enabling   him   “to   explain   any

circumstances appearing in the evidence

against   him”.   Now   it   is   evident   that

when the Sessions Court is required to

make   the   examination   under   this

section, the evidence referred to is the

evidence in the Sessions Court and the

circumstances which appear against the

accused in that court. It is not therefore

enough to read over the questions and

answers   put   in   the   Committing

Magistrate's Court and ask the accused

whether he has anything to say about

Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256 of 2018

Page 12 of 33

them. In the present case, there was not

even that. The appellant was not asked

to explain the circumstances appearing

in   the   evidence   against   him   but   was

asked   whether   the   statements   made

before the Committing Magistrate and

his answers given there were correctly

recorded. That does not comply with the

requirements of the section.”

The second important decision on this aspect is the

decision of a Bench of three Hon’ble Judges of this

Court.   This is a decision in the case of  Shivaji

Sahabrao   Bobade   &   Anr.   v.  State   of

Maharashtra

7

.   In paragraph 16 of the decision,

this Court examined the issue of non­compliance

with the requirements of Section 342 of CrPC of

1898.  Paragraph 16 reads thus:

“16. The   discovery   of   incriminating

materials pursuant to confessions made

by   the   accused   constitutes   the   third

category   of   evidence.   Obviously,   the

confessions   are   inadmissible   but   the

discoveries   are,   provided   they   are

pertinent to the guilt of the accused. So

far   as   Accused   2   is   concerned,   his

statement resulted in the discovery of a

knife   (Vide Panchnama,   Ext.   13).   Of

7 (1973) 2 SCC 793

Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256 of 2018

Page 13 of 33

course, knives were discovered long ago

and not now but this knife lay buried

and was recovered by the accused from

a pit in the corner of a wall of his house.

There was human blood on the blade of

the   knife,   MO   5/1   according   to   the

chemical   analyst's   report.   The   second

accused's clothes also were picked up

by him pursuant to his statement. He

had worn a shirt and pants on the day

of occurrence and PW 13, a neighbour

deposes that the second accused had

come to him at about 6 p.m. on the

Monday   when   Hariba   died   and   had

mentioned to him that since his own

house was locked he might be permitted

to   keep   his   clothes   in   the   witnesses

house.   Thereafter   he   left   his   clothes

under an empty khokha from where he

himself   took   them   out   when   he   later

came   in   the   company   of   the   police.

There   are   blood­stains   on  the   clothes

and   it   is   found   by   the   chemical

examiner that the blood on the pants

are of the same blood group as that of

the deceased. When the second accused

was   asked   under   Section   342,   CrPC

about   the   report   of   the   chemical

examiner noticing blood stains on the

shirt, MO 5/2 and of human blood on

the   blade   of   the   knife,   MO   5/1,   he

merely answered, “I do not know”. He

also described as false the fact of his

recovering   the   clothes   and   the   knife.

Bald   denial   notwithstanding,   we   are

inclined   to   believe,   with   the   learned

Judges of the High Court, that the knife

and the shirt have been identified as his

Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256 of 2018

Page 14 of 33

and   since   he   had   recovered   them,

thereby making the police discover the

fact, there was incriminating inference

available against the said accused. We

may   notice   here   a   serious   omission

committed by the trial Judge and not

noticed   by   either   court.   The   pants

allegedly worn at the time of the attack

by   the   second   accused   has   stains   of

blood   relatable   to   the   group   of   the

deceased. This circumstance binds him

to   the   crime   a   little   clear   but   it   is

unfortunate   that   no   specific   question

about this circumstance has been put to

him   by   the   Court.  It   is   trite   law,

nevertheless   fundamental,   that   the

prisoner's attention should be drawn

to every inculpatory material so as to

enable him to explain it. This is the

basic fairness of a criminal trial and

failures   in   this   area   may   gravely

imperil the validity of the trial itself,

if consequential miscarriage of justice

has flowed. However, where such an

omission   has   occurred   it   does   not

ipso facto vitiate the proceedings and

prejudice occasioned by such defect

must be established by the accused.

In the event of evidentiary material

not   being   put   to   the   accused,   the

court   must   ordinarily   eschew   such

material from consideration. It is also

open   to  the   appellate   court  to  call

upon the counsel for the accused to

show   what   explanation   the   accused

has   as   regards   the   circumstances

Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256 of 2018

Page 15 of 33

established against him but not put

to him and if the accused is unable to

offer the appellate court any plausible

or   reasonable   explanation   of   such

circumstances,   the   Court   may

assume   that   no   acceptable   answer

exists and that even if the accused

had   been   questioned   at   the   proper

time in the trial court he would not

have been able to furnish any good

ground   to   get   out   of   the

circumstances   on   which   the   trial

court had relied for its conviction. In

such a case, the Court proceeds on the

footing that though a grave irregularity

has   occurred   as   regards   compliance

with Section 342, CrPC, the omission

has   not   been   shown   to   have   caused

prejudice to the accused. In the present

case, however, the High Court, though

not the trial court has relied upon the

presence of blood on the pants of the

blood group of the deceased. We have

not been shown what explanation the

accused   could   have   offered   to   this

chemical finding particularly when we

remember   that   his   answer   to   the

question regarding the human blood on

the   blade   of   the   knife   was   “I   do  not

know”. Counsel for the appellants could

not make out any intelligent explanation

and   the   “blood”   testimony   takes   the

crime closer to the accused. However,

we are not inclined to rely over much on

this evidentiary circumstance, although

we   should   emphasise   how   this

inadvertance of the trial court had led to

Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256 of 2018

Page 16 of 33

a   relevant   fact   being   argued   as

unavailable   to   the   prosecution.   Great

care is expected of Sessions Judges who

try   grave   cases   to   collect   every

incriminating circumstance and put it to

the accused even though at the end of a

long   trial   the   Judge   may   be   a   little

fagged out.”

(emphasis added)

13.Then we come to the decision of this Court in

the   case   of  S.   Harnam   Singh  v.  State   (Delhi

Admn.)

8

.  In paragraph 22, this Court held thus :

“22. Section 342 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1898, casts a duty on the

court to put, at any enquiry or trial,

questions to the accused for the purpose

of   enabling   him   to   explain   any

circumstances appearing in the evidence

against him. It follows as a necessary

corollary   therefrom   that   each

material   circumstance   appearing   in

evidence   against   the   accused   is

required to be put to him specifically,

distinctly and separately. Failure to

do   so   amounts   to   a   serious

irregularity vitiating the trial if it is

shown   to   have   prejudiced   the

accused. If the irregularity does not,

in fact, occasion a failure of justice, it

is curable under Section 537, of the

Code.”

8 (1976) 2 SCC 819

Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256 of 2018

Page 17 of 33

(emphasis added)

14.Then we come to a decision in the case of

Samsul Haque

4

 relied upon by the learned counsel

for the appellant.   In paragraphs 21 to 23, this

Court held thus : 

“21. The most vital aspect, in our view,

and what drives the nail in the coffin in

the   case   of   the   prosecution   is   the

manner in which the court put the case

to   Accused   9,   and   the   statement

recorded under Section 313 CrPC. To

say the least it is perfunctory.

22. It is trite to say that, in view of

the   judgments   referred   to   by   the

learned Senior Counsel, aforesaid, the

incriminating material is to be put to

the accused so that the accused gets

a fair chance to defend himself. This

is in recognition of the principles of

audi alteram partem.  Apart from the

judgments referred to aforesaid by the

learned Senior Counsel, we may usefully

refer   to   the   judgment   of   this   Court

in Asraf   Ali v. State   of   Assam [Asraf

Ali v. State of Assam, (2008) 16 SCC 328

: (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 278] . The relevant

Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256 of 2018

Page 18 of 33

observations   are   in   the   following

paragraphs : (SCC p. 334, paras 21­22)

“21. Section 313 of the Code casts a

duty   on   the   court   to   put   in   an

enquiry   or   trial   questions   to   the

accused for the purpose of enabling

him   to   explain   any   of   the

circumstances   appearing   in   the

evidence against him. It follows as

necessary   corollary   therefrom   that

each   material   circumstance

appearing   in   the   evidence   against

the accused is required to be put to

him   specifically,   distinctly   and

separately   and   failure   to   do   so

amounts   to   a   serious   irregularity

vitiating trial, if it is shown that the

accused was prejudiced.

22.  The object of Section 313 of

the Code is to establish a direct

dialogue between the Court and

the   accused.   If   a   point   in   the

evidence is important against the

accused,   and   the   conviction   is

intended to be based upon it, it is

right and proper that the accused

should   be   questioned   about   the

matter   and   be   given   an

opportunity   of   explaining   it.

Where no specific question has been

put   by   the   trial   court   on   an

inculpatory   material   in   the

prosecution   evidence,   it   would

Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256 of 2018

Page 19 of 33

vitiate the trial. Of course, all these

are   subject   to   rider   whether   they

have caused miscarriage of justice

or   prejudice.   This   Court   also

expressed   a   similar   view   in S.

Harnam   Singh v. State   (Delhi

Admn.) [S.   Harnam   Singh v. State

(Delhi Admn.), (1976) 2 SCC 819 :

1976 SCC (Cri) 324] while dealing

with   Section   342   of   the   Criminal

Procedure   Code,   1898

(corresponding to Section 313 of the

Code). Non­indication of inculpatory

material in its relevant facets by the

trial court to the accused adds to

the vulnerability of the prosecution

case.  Recording  of  a  statement  of

the accused under Section 313 is

not a purposeless exercise.”

23. While   making   the   aforesaid

observations, this Court also referred to

its earlier judgment of the three­Judge

Bench   in  Shivaji   Sahabrao

Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [Shivaji

Sahabrao   Bobade  v. State   of

Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973

SCC (Cri) 1033] , which considered the

fallout   of   the   omission   to   put   to   the

accused   a   question   on   a   vital

circumstance appearing against him in

the   prosecution   evidence,   and   the

requirement that the accused's attention

should be drawn to every inculpatory

material so as to enable him to explain

Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256 of 2018

Page 20 of 33

it. Ordinarily, in such a situation, such

material as not put to the accused must

be eschewed. No doubt, it is recognised,

that   where   there   is   a   perfunctory

examination under Section  313  CrPC,

the matter is capable of being remitted

to the trial court, with the direction to

retry   from   the   stage   at   which   the

prosecution   was   closed   [Shivaji

Sahabrao   Bobade  v. State   of

Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973

SCC (Cri) 1033].”

                          (emphasis added)

15.Learned   counsel   for   the   respondent   also

relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of

Vahitha v. State of Tamil Nadu

9

.  This case does

not deal with the consequences of the omission

made while questioning the accused under Section

313 of CrPC.   This deals only with a contingency

where evidence of the prosecution witnesses goes

unchallenged.  Now we come to the decision of this

Court in the case of Satyavir Singh

5

 relied upon

by the learned counsel for the respondent.   The

9 2023 SCC OnLine SC 174.

Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256 of 2018

Page 21 of 33

decision holds that the challenge to the conviction

based on non­compliance with Section 313 of CrPC

for   the   first   time   in   the   appeal   cannot   be

entertained unless the accused demonstrates that

prejudice has been caused to him.  If an objection

is raised at the earliest, the defect can be cured by

recording an additional statement of the concerned

accused.   The   sum   and   substance   of   the   said

decision is that such a long delay can be a factor in

deciding   whether   the   trial   is   vitiated.   Moreover,

what is binding is the decision of the larger Bench

in the case of  Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade

7,

 which

lays down that if there is prejudice caused to the

accused resulting in failure of justice, the trial will

vitiate.

16.The law consistently laid down by this Court

can be summarized as under:

(i)It is the duty of the Trial Court to put

each   material   circumstance   appearing

Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256 of 2018

Page 22 of 33

in   the   evidence   against   the   accused

specifically, distinctively and separately.

The   material   circumstance   means   the

circumstance   or   the   material   on   the

basis   of   which   the   prosecution   is

seeking his conviction;

(ii)The   object   of   examination   of   the

accused under Section 313 is to enable

the   accused   to   explain   any

circumstance appearing against him in

the evidence;

(iii)The   Court   must   ordinarily   eschew

material circumstances not put to the

accused   from   consideration   while

dealing with the case of the particular

accused;

(iv)The   failure   to   put   material

circumstances to the accused amounts

to a serious irregularity.   It will vitiate

Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256 of 2018

Page 23 of 33

the trial if it is shown to have prejudiced

the accused;

(v)If   any   irregularity   in   putting   the

material   circumstance   to   the   accused

does not result in failure of justice, it

becomes   a   curable   defect.   However,

while deciding whether the defect can be

cured, one of the considerations will be

the passage of time from the date of the

incident;

(vi)In   case   such   irregularity   is   curable,

even the appellate court can question

the   accused   on   the   material

circumstance which is not put to him;

and

(vii)In   a   given   case,   the   case   can   be

remanded to the Trial Court from the

stage   of   recording   the   supplementary

statement   of   the   concerned   accused

Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256 of 2018

Page 24 of 33

under Section 313 of CrPC.

(viii)While   deciding   the   question   whether

prejudice   has   been   caused   to   the

accused because of the omission, the

delay in raising the contention is only

one   of   the   several   factors   to   be

considered.

17.Now,   we   will   have   to   apply   the   principles

enunciated by this Court to the facts of this case.

The High Court has reproduced the charge framed

on 04

th

 July 1998 against the accused, which reads

thus :

“Charge

6.   The   charge   framed   against   all   the

accused   by   the   order   dated   4

th

  July

1998 by the trial Court was as under :

(i)That on or before 1

st

 October 1995

at around 3.30 pm at Delhi A­1 to

A­6 along with Vimal (since dead)

agreed to criminally intimidate and

commit the murder of Jawahar Lal

(PW­3) and his relatives on account

of the failure of PW­3 to stop his

TV  cable network  in the  area  of

Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256 of 2018

Page 25 of 33

Paschimpuri   thereby   committing

the offence of criminal conspiracy

punishable   under   Section   120B

IPC.

(ii)That   at   House   No.618/3,

Paschimpuri on 1

st

  October 1995,

in   pursuance   of   the

aforementioned   conspiracy,   A­4

and   A­5   fired   bullets   from   their

respective revolvers on Smt. Omi

Devi   and   Chander   Shekhar

whereas   Vimal   and   A­3   attacked

Chander   Shekhar   and   Omi   with

their   respective   dagger  and  knife

and committed their murders and

thus all of them had committed an

offence punishable under Section

302 read with 120B IPC.

(iii)All   of   them   pursuant   to   the

criminal   conspiracy   attempted

to commit the murder of PW­3

by   firing   bullets   from   their

revolvers on both PW­3 and PW­7

due to which both of them received

dangerous injuries and thereby all

of   them   committed   an   offence

punishable under Section 307 read

with 120B IPC.’

                     (emphasis added)

Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256 of 2018

Page 26 of 33

18.In paragraph 7 of the High Court Judgment,

it is noted that a separate charge under Section 452

read   with   120­B   of   IPC   was   framed   against   all

accused except the present appellant.   Thus, the

charge as framed against the appellant was of being

a party to criminal conspiracy.   There is also a

charge that all the accused fired bullets from their

revolver.     Only   based   on   the   version   of   PW­5

regarding the appellant’s presence with a weapon

outside the premises where the offence took place,

the involvement of the appellant has been held as

proved.   There   is   absolutely   no   other   evidence

against him. This is not a case where there are

several   incriminating   circumstances   appearing

against the appellant in the evidence adduced by

the prosecution.  This is a case where there is only

a solitary circumstance appearing in the evidence

against the appellant.   The prosecution examined

Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256 of 2018

Page 27 of 33

37 witnesses.  The material against the appellant is

in the form of one sentence in the evidence of PW­5.

As mentioned earlier, if we read 42 questions put to

the appellant in his statement under Section 313 of

CrPC, any accused having ordinary intelligence will

carry   an   impression   that   there   is   absolutely   no

material   against   him.     The   appellant   was   not

confronted during his examination under section

313   of   CrPC   with   the   only   allegation   of   the

prosecution against him.  This is how, on facts, we

find that a serious prejudice was caused to the

appellant.  

19.The   incident   is   of   1995.     It   is   not   clear

whether this aspect was argued before the Trial

Court as the Trial Court has not reproduced the

submissions   of   the   counsel   for   the   appellant.

However, before the High Court, it was certainly

canvassed   as   it   forms   a   part   of   the   written

submissions. 

Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256 of 2018

Page 28 of 33

20.Even assuming that the defect or irregularity

was curable, the question is whether today, the

appellant­accused can be called upon to explain the

said   circumstance.     More   than   27   years   have

passed since the date of the incident.  Considering

the passage of time, we are of the view that it will

be unjust now at this stage to remit the case to the

Trial Court for recording further statement of the

appellant under Section 313 of CrPC.  In the facts

of the case, the appellant cannot be called upon to

answer something which has transpired 27 years

back.  There is one more aspect of the matter which

persuaded us not to pass an order of remand.  The

said   factor   is   that   the   appellant   has   already

undergone incarceration for a period of 10 years

and 4 months. 

21.Before we part with this judgment, we must

take a note of sub­section (5) added to Section 313

Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256 of 2018

Page 29 of 33

of CrPC w.e.f. 31

st

 December 2009.  Sub­section (5)

reads thus :

“313. Power to examine the accused. ­

(1) … … …

(2) … … … …

(3) … … … …

(4) … … … …

(5)   The   Court   may   take   help   of

Prosecutor   and   Defence   Counsel   in

preparing relevant questions which are

to be put to the accused and the Court

may permit filing of written statement

by the accused as sufficient compliance

of this section.”

In   many   criminal   trials,   a   large   number   of

witnesses   are   examined,   and   evidence   is

voluminous.   It is true that the Judicial Officers

have to understand the importance of Section 313.

But now the Court is empowered to take the help of

the   prosecutor   and   the   defence   counsel   in

preparing relevant questions.  Therefore, when the

Trial Judge prepares questions to be put to the

accused   under   Section   313,   before   putting   the

questions to the accused, the Judge can always

Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256 of 2018

Page 30 of 33

provide copies of the said questions to the learned

Public Prosecutor as well as the learned defence

Counsel and seek their assistance for ensuring that

every   relevant   material   circumstance   appearing

against the accused is put to him.  When the Judge

seeks   the   assistance   of   the   prosecutor   and   the

defence lawyer, the lawyers must act as the officers

of   the   Court   and   not   as   mouthpieces   of   their

respective clients.   While recording the statement

under Section 313 of CrPC in cases involving a

large number of prosecution witnesses, the Judicial

Officers will be well advised to take benefit of sub­

section   (5)   of   Section   313   of   CrPC,   which   will

ensure that the chances of committing errors and

omissions are minimized.

22.In 1951, while delivering the verdict in the

case of  Tara Singh

6

, this Court lamented that in

many cases, scant attention is paid to the salutary

provision of Section 342 of CrPC of 1898.  We are

Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256 of 2018

Page 31 of 33

sorry to note that the situation continues to be the

same after 72 years as we see such defaults in large

number   of   cases.   The   National   and   the   State

Judicial   Academies   must   take   a   note   of   this

situation.  The Registry shall forward a copy of this

decision to the National and all the State Judicial

Academies.

23.In the circumstances, we are of the view that

the conviction of the appellant stands vitiated.  In

the facts of the case, the option of remand will be

unjust.   Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set

aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant

under the Judgment and Order dated 27

th

 August

2003  passed  by the   learned  Additional  Sessions

Judge,   Delhi,   in   Sessions   Case   No.9   of   2000.

Consequently, the impugned judgment of the High

Court is also set aside.  We make it clear that both

judgments   are   set   aside   only   insofar   as   the

appellant is concerned.  We, accordingly, direct that

Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256 of 2018

Page 32 of 33

the respondent shall forthwith set the appellant at

liberty   unless   he   is   required   to   be   detained   in

connection with any other case. 

……………………………J.

[ABHAY S. OKA]

……………………………J.

[RAJESH BINDAL] 

New Delhi

May 11, 2023.

Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256 of 2018

Page 33 of 33