High Court Duty to Examine Under Section 313 CrPC
 |
| High Court Duty to Examine Under Section 313 CrPC |
High Court Duty to Examine Under Section 313 CrPC
In
a recent judgment, the Supreme Court held that when an appeal against
conviction is preferred before the High Court, at the earlier
stage, the High Court must examine/check the
statement of accused under section 313
of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 CrPC corresponding section 351
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023 (BNSS). If any defect is
found, it can be cured either by the High Court at any stage by recording
further statement or by directing the Trial Court to record it. High Court's
duty to examine accused's statement under section 313
Crpc/Section 351 BNSS upheld in Supreme Court judgment on burning
death case.
The
Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court, in which the
High Court acquits the husband in the case of burning to
death of his wife and three daughters. The Court further stated that in the
absence of legal evidence on record to prove the guilty of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt, we cannot interfere with the impugned judgment of the High
Court.
Background of the Case
The
case is that on 26 December 2008, the complainant (real brother of the
deceased) lodged an First Information Report against the husband of the
deceased and other accused persons for the offences punishable under section 302,307
and 120B of the IPC alleging that the accused locked her and her
three daughters and poured kerosene on her and her daughters and
set them on fire. One daughter died on the spot and she and her two daughters
were injured due to injuries. All of them died.
The
dying declaration of the daughter was recorded. Daughter stated
that her father and the village people poured kerosene oil
and set it on fire.
A
charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offence punishable under
section 302 IPC.
The
learned court below convicted the husband/accused and
accepted the testimony, the minor son the accused. The learned court
also accepted the dying declarations of the deceased.
However,
by the impugned judgment, the High Court acquit the accused, aggrieved
by an impugned judgment and order the appellant/complainant preferred and present/current
appeal.
Brief facts
The
Brief fact is that the appellant filed an appeal against the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court by which the accused
was acquitted of the offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC. It
is the death of the deceased (wife of the accused) and her three daughters.
Even cousin of the accused died due to the burn injuries sustained in the same
incident.
Counsel for the Appellant
The
Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court misread
the medical evidence and arrived at the wrong conclusion that the
deceased committed suicide and in the process of saving her others got injured.
Learned
counsel appearing for the informant riled upon the following decisions:
Raju
Devade vs. State of Maharastra
J.
Ramulu & Anr. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Balbir
Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab
He
submitted that primacy must always be given to the ocular evidence and not a
medical evidence.
Counsel for the Accused
Learned
Counsel for the accused pointed out that evidence of dying declarations
was not placed before the accused in the statement recorded under section 313 CrPC.
He relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Raj Kumar vs. State
(NCT of Delhi).
 |
| High Court Duty to Examine Under Section 313 CrPC |
Court’s Reasoning, Analysis
After
the considering the submissions, the bench referred to decisions in the case of
Raj Kumar vs. State of (NCT of Delhi) held that “it is the duty
of the trail court to put each material
circumstance appearing 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. The object of the examination of the accused under
section 313 is to enable the accused to explain any circumstance
appearing against him in the evidence.”
Further,
the Court stated that “the Prosecution has heavily relied upon the dying
declarations of the two victims. As this evidence was not placed in the statement
of the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC, he
was denied the opportunity to explain the same. Hence, this omission causes
prejudice to him. Therefore, the evidence of dying declaration will have to be
kept out of consideration.
After
re-appreciation of the evidence, the court find that the view taken by
the High Court that the guilt of the accused was not proved beyond
reasonable doubt is a possible view which could have been taken
on the basis of the evidence on record. Even assuming that another view is
possible, it is no ground to reverse the order of acquittal.
Conclusion
The
Supreme Court in the matter of Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
& Anr. decided on 22.02.2025 ordered that the incident is very shocking
in which a women and her three daughters were burnt and one of them died
on the spot, the other three died a few days later. However, in the absence
of legal evidence material on record to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond the reasonable doubt, we cannot interfere with the impugned
judgment of the High Court.
This
Court reiterated that the High Court must examine statement
of the accused under section 313 Crpc (Section
351 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). This Court find that
crucial/vital prosecution evidence was not put to the accused in the statement under
section 313 Crpc /351 of the BNSS.
High
Court's duty to examine accused's statement under
section 313 Crpc/Section 351 BNSS upheld in
Supreme Court judgment on burning death case.
The
appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.
Case
Title: - Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Read More:
.png)
Post a Comment