Accused Should Not Be Subjected to a Preliminary Examination Under Section 313 Of the CrPC
Image Source: Live Law
The examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code should not be conducted hastily, the division judge bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Chandra Prakash Singh of the Patna High Court said.
The HC Bench further noted that the accused would not profit from the Investigating Officer’s simple non-examination unless it could be demonstrated that doing so had hurt the accused’s case.
Brief Facts
The case’s factual foundation is that the informant observed five plows being used on Ramsharan Yadav’s field, on which he had previously planted paddy seedlings, as he approached his home from the south of the hamlet. The informant further said that seven of the defendants were standing on a ridge when he arrived at the area where they were allegedly plowing it.
When the informant objected, they said that they owned the area and demanded that he leave immediately or else they would kill him. The informant fled as one of the accused people pursued him, but after falling, the accused person hit him on the head with a garage. The other accused people arrived at the scene as well, and when Domi Mahto and Mahanth Mahto (dead) tried to save the informant, they too were attacked by the other accused people. When the villagers got to the scene of the incident, the accused had already left. The villagers brought the injured to the police station. The accused were named in the allegations, and the trial court found them guilty.
Contentions of the Appellant
The knowledgeable attorney for the appellant argued that the trial court’s judgment of conviction had several flaws. It was further argued that the accused individuals were not given a fair opportunity to present their defense and that the defective examination conducted by Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code prejudiced the appellant. Additionally, the investigating officer was not called as a witness for the prosecution, and there was no justification for this.
Contentions of the State
The experienced attorney representing the state argued that the trial court’s decision was final and that the prosecution’s case had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Additionally, it was argued that any objections to Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. should be raised as soon as possible. Furthermore, the appellant has not suffered any harm as a result of the investigating authorities’ lack of questioning.
Issues Before the Court
- Is it true that the flawed examination conducted by Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code seriously harmed the defense by failing to adequately inform the accused of the information they requested to be explained?
- Whether the prosecution’s failure to cross-examine the investigating officer has hurt the appellants’ defense.
Observations of the Court
The Honorable Court stated that the accused should not be put through a superficial examination as required by Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The accused must be given a fair opportunity to respond and provide justification for his accusations. Therefore, when questioning the accused, the trial Court should be informed of the purpose underlying this regulation. The rulings Reena Hazarika v. State of Assam and Jai Prakash Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh were cited by the court.
Additionally, neither the charges brought forth under Sections 302/34, 302/149, 323, 325/34, and 147 of the Penal Code nor the examination questions presented under Section 313 Cr.P.C. specify which weapons each candidate uses. The court further noted that the appellants had been denied a fair opportunity to present their case, which had resulted in prejudice against them.
The accused would not benefit from simply refusing to question the investigating officer, it was noted unless it could be shown that doing so would harm their case.
It was also mentioned that the fact that the location of the incident is still unknown and that the appellants were deprived of the chance to question the investigating officer about the reliability of the prosecution witnesses made the absence of the investigating officer’s examination unquestionably prejudicial to the appellant’s defense.
These factors led the court to annul the verdict and the conviction order issued by the trial court.
Team Profile
Latest entries
Article30 September 2023Can RPF Personnel Be Treated As ‘Workman’ For Compensation Purposes? SC Decides
English30 September 2023High Court Expounds: The Statement of an Eyewitness Must Be Free from Blemish and Devoid of Any Ambiguity, Uncertainty, and Loopholes
News29 September 2023Radhasoami Satsang Bhawan: The High Court Directs to Maintain the Status Quo On Land in Agra until Oct 5- News28 September 2023Denying Child’s Affection to Other Spouse Cruelty: High Court
