LexNAR SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014] 12 S.C.R. 218 NAR SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 2388 of 2014) NOVEMBER 11, 2014 [T.S. THAKUR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: c s.313 - Non-compliance of mandatory provisions of s.313 whether vitiative of trial and conviction of the appellant - Held: The provisions of s.313 are mandatory and cast a duty on the court to afford an opportunity to the accused to explain each and every circumstance and incriminating 0 evidence against him - The examination of accused u/ s.313(1)(b) is not a mere formality- s.313 merely prescribes a procedural safeguard for an accused - Objection as to s.313 statement should be taken at the earliest stage - Any omission on the part of the Court to question the accused on E any incriminating circumstance would however not ipso facto vitiate the trial, unless some material prejudice is shown to have been caused to the accused - Insofar as non- compliance of mandatory provisions of s.313, it is an error essentially committed by the Sessions Judge - Since justice suffers in the hands of the Court, the same can be corrected F or rectified in the appeal. G H s. 386 - Power of appellate court - Scope of - Discussed. Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The object of Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. is to bring the substance of accusation to the ·accused to enable him to explain each and every circumstance appearing in the evidence against him. The provisions of 218 NAR SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 219 this section are mandatory and cast a duty on the court A to afford an opportunity to the accused to explain each and every circumstance and incriminating evidence against him. The statutory provision of Section 313, Cr.P.C. is based on the rules of natural justice for an accused, who must be made aware of the circumstances B being put against him so that he can give a proper explanation to meet that case. If an objection as to Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement is taken at the earliest stage, the Court can make good the defect and record additional statement of the accused as that would be in c the interest of all. When objections as to defective Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement is raised in the appellate court, then difficulty arises for the prosecution as well as the accused. [Paras 11, 16) [228-B; 230-H; 231-A-B] State of Punjab v. Hari Singh . & Ors. 2009 D (2) SCR 470:(2009) 4 SCC200; Usha K. Pillai v. Raj K. Srinivas & Ors. 1993 (3) SCR 467:(1993) 3 SCC 208; Paramjeet Singh alias Pamma v. State of Uttarakhand 201 O (11) SCR 1064:(2010) 10 SCC 439; Basava R. Patil & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. 2000 (3) Suppl. SCR 658: E (2000) 8 sec 740 - relied on. 2. The question whether a trial is vitiated or not depends upon the degree of the error and the accused must show that non-compliance of Section 313 Cr.P.C. F has materially prejudiced him or is likely to cause prejudice to him. Merely IJecause of defective questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., it cannot be inferred that any prejudice had been caused to the accused, even assuming that some incriminating G circumstances in the prosecution case had been left out. When such objection as to omi~sion to put the question under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is raised by the accused in the appellate court and prejudice is also shown to have been caused to the accused, then the appellate court may H 220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 12 S.C.R. A examine the convict or call upon the counsel for the accused to show what explanation the accused has as regards the circumstances established against him but not put to him under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the said answer can be taken into consideration. [Paras 20, 23] B [232-G-H; 234-C-D] Avtar Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab 2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 482: (2002) 7 SCC 419; Wasim Khan v. The State of Uttar Pradesh 1956 SCR 191:AIR 1956 SC 400; Bhoor C Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab AIR 1974 SC 1256; Santosh Kumar Singh v State through CBI 2010 (13) SCR 901:(2010) 9 SCC 747; State of Punjab v Hari Singh & Ors. 2009 (2) SCR 470: (2009) 4 SCC 200; Ku/dip Singh & Ors. V. State of Delhi (2003) 12 SCC 528; Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra 2012 (1) SCR 145: (2012) 2 SCC 648; D Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra 1974 (1) SCR 489:(1973) 2 SCC 793; State (Delhi. Administration) vs. Dharampal 2001 (4) Suppl. SCR 448: (2001) 10 sec 372 - relied on. E 3. Section
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.