LexLATU MAHTO & ANR. versus THE STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND)
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 8 S.C.R. 1048 A LATU MAHTO & ANR. ' ( ;~ v. THE STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND) , (Criminal Appeal No. 923 of 2008) B MAY 16, 2008 (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.) 'f.._ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.313 - Power to ... c examine the· accused - Statement of accused under - Im- proper recording - Effect of - Held: On facts, examination of accused u/s 313 not properly done - Charges were not ex- plained to accused while recording their statement u/s 313 - Also, presence/participation of accused not established - D Thus, conviction by courts below not maintainable - Penal .+ Code, 1860 .... s. 302, 149 rlw s. 34. Practice and Procedure - Judgment/Order - Require- ment of recof'ding reasons - Held: It is essential to give a rea- soned order - Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity E According to the prosecution case, BN with other 10 accused persons armed with weapons formed an unlaw- ful assembly and in furtherance of common object ki_lled BM and injured BL, SD and the informant. Trial court con- victed and ~entenced them u/s.3021149 IPC. BN and KM t F were convicted u/s.302134 IPC. Appellants filed appeals on the ground that the examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was not properly done, the details of the accusations were not brought to their notice and even the charges were not framed properly. High Court dismissed the appeals. G Hence the present appeal. Appellants contended that they were convicted by .... application of s. 149 IPC; that their presence and/or par- ticipation have not been established; and that the exami- H 1048 LATU MAHTO & ANR. v. THE STATE OF BIHAR 1049 (NOW JHARKHAND) ~' nation u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was not properly done and in any A event the charges framed were totally defective. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 Reason is the heartbeat of every conclu- sion, and without the same it becomes lifeless. Reasons B substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on re- ¥ cording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscru- table face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appel- late function or exercise the power of judicial review in c adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. D + One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spell- ~ ing out reasons for the order made; in other words, a speaking out. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordi- narily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.[Para 6 and 7] [1054-8,D,E,F] E 1.2. In the instant case, High Court's judgment is prac- tically unreasoned. [Para 9) [1054-G] Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar and Ors. 2003 (7) SCC ... 152; State of Punjab v. Bhag Singh 2004 (1) SCC 547 - relied I on. F Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union 1971 (1) All E.R. 1148; Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree 1974 ICR 120)(NIRC) - referred to. 2.1. Section 313 Cr.P.C. itself declares the object in G explicit language that it is "for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances ap- pearing in the evidence against him". Thus the provision is mainly intended to benefit the accused and as its cor- H 1050 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S. C.R. A ollary to benefit the court in reaching the final conclusion. ~ ,Yo.. (Paras 18 and 19] (1058-F,G, 1059-B,C] 2.2 Section 313 Cr.P.C. is not intended to nail him to any position, but to comply with the most salutary prin- B ciple of natural justice enshrined in the maxim audi alteram partem. The word "may" in clause (a) of sub-section (1) in s. 313 of the Code indicates, without any doubt, that even 'j if the court does not put any question under that clause the accused cannot raise any grievance for it. But if the court fails to put the needed question under clause (b) of c the sub-section it would result in a handicap. to the ac- cused and he can legitimately claim that no evidence, with- out affording him the opportunity to explain, can be used · against him. It is now well settled that a circumstance about which the accused was not asked to explain can- I D not be used against him. (Para 20] (1059-C,D,E] i- + Bibhuti
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.