Supreme Court on Defective Section 313 Examination: Conviction Set Aside and Case Remanded.

Headnote:

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of three accused in a 2016 murder case after finding that their examination under Section 313 CrPC was conducted in a vague, defective, and perfunctory manner. The Court held that the Trial Court failed to put all material incriminating circumstances to the accused, thereby causing serious prejudice. Since proper compliance with Section 313 is mandatory and central to a fair trial, the case was remitted to the Trial Court to redo proceedings from the stage of Section 313 within four months. Convictions of the remaining co-accused were left undisturbed.

Background:

• Six persons were convicted in Sessions Trial No. 256/2016 for offences under Sections 302/34, 448, and 323/34 IPC relating to the murder of Ghughali Pasi on 31 March 2016.

• The Patna High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence.

• Only three accused—Chandan Pasi, Pappu Pasi, and Gidik Pasi—approached the Supreme Court.

• At the stage of issuing notice, the Court limited the scope of appeal to examining whether there was proper compliance with Section 313 CrPC.

• The appellants argued that their Section 313 statements were almost identical, lacked specificity, and failed to put crucial evidence and circumstances to them.

Court’s Observations:

• Section 313 CrPC is not a mere procedural ritual—it establishes a direct dialogue between the court and the accused and ensures fairness.

• Every material incriminating circumstance appearing in evidence must be put to the accused; otherwise, such circumstances cannot be used against him.

• The Trial Court asked only two generic questions, failing to present specific details such as weapon use, individual roles, medical evidence, or witness statements.

• The statements of all three accused were carbon copies, showing clear non-application of mind.

• Prosecution also failed to assist the court in ensuring proper compliance with Section 313.

• Such defective examination caused real prejudice, vitiating the conviction.

Decision:

• Conviction and sentence of the three appellants were set aside.

• The matter was remanded to the Trial Court to recommence proceedings from the stage of Section 313 CrPC.

• The Trial Court must complete this exercise within four months of receiving the judgment.

• Findings are restricted only to the three appellants; the conviction of the remaining accused remains undisturbed.

Legal Provisions Discussed:

• Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Examination of accused.

• Sections 302/34, 448, 323/34 IPC — Murder with common intention, house trespass, and simple hurt.

• Article 136, Constitution of India — Special leave jurisdiction.

• Precedents discussed:

– Sanatan Naskar v. State of West Bengal (2010)

– Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023)

– Indrakunwar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2023)

– Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh v. State of UP (2025)

Citation: 2025 INSC 1371

Case: Chandan Pasi & Ors. v. State of Bihar

Court: Supreme Court of India

Date of Decision: 1 December 2025

Criminal Appeal Nos.: 3965–3967 of 2024 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 7736–7738 of 2023)