Patna High Court

RAVINDRA SHARMA @ RAVINDER SHARMAversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 15 June 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD KUMAR MANISH

Holding

The conviction was set aside because the trial court failed to put every material circumstance before the accused during the Section 313 examination, violating the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.

Summary

The appellant, Ravindra Sharma, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge in Jehanabad for offences under IPC Sections 341, 323, 457 and 376D arising from a night-time intrusion, assault and gang‑rape alleged to have occurred on 30 June 2019. The trial court relied on the testimony of the informant, his family members and two female victims, as well as medical reports, to uphold the conviction. On appeal, the High Court examined whether the trial court had complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 313 of the CrPC (now Section 351 of the BNSS) in recording the accused’s statement. It found that the court had only put a vague, general question to the accused and failed to put each material circumstance of the prosecution’s case before him, contrary to Supreme Court pronouncements. Consequently, the High Court held that this non‑compliance amounted to a serious irregularity that prejudiced the appellant’s right to a fair defence. The conviction and sentence were set aside and the matter remitted to the trial court to re‑record the Section 313 statement, with a six‑month deadline.

Issues considered

The trial court’s compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 313 CrPC (now Section 351 BNSS) in recording the accused’s statement.
Whether the failure to put all material circumstances before the accused vitiates the conviction under IPC Sections 341, 323, 457 and 376D.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 27
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 351
Criminal Procedure Code — s. 313
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 341, 376D, 427, 457, 504

Subjects

Section 313 CrPC
Section 351 BNSS
procedural fairness
conviction set aside
remand
gang rape
IPC sections 341, 323, 457, 376D
evidence
material circumstances

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.808 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-35 Year-2019 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Jehanabad
======================================================
Ravindra Sharma @ Ravinder Sharma, Son of Late Mohan Sharma, Resident
of Village- Sendhawa, PS- Parasbigha, Distt- Jehanabad.
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
Ms. Kiran Kumari, Advocate
Md. Imteyaz Ahmad, Advocate
Mr. Ritwij Raman, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, Addl.PP
For the Informant : Mr. Ram Prawesh Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KUMAR MANISH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)

Date : 15-06-2026

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for

the informant.

2. The present appeal has been preferred for setting

aside the judgment of conviction dated 28.06.2023 (hereinafter

referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) and the order of sentence

dated 05.07.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order’)

passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jehanabad

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court’) in Sessions Trial

No. 102/ 2020 / 63/2020 arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 35 of

2019. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.808 of 2023 dt.15-06-2026
2/20

convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323,

457/34 and 376D of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’). By the

impugned order, he has been sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment under Section 341/34 IPC and six months rigorous

imprisonment under Section 323/34 IPC. He has also been

sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment under

Section 457/34 IPC with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of

payment of fine, he shall further undergo two months rigorous

imprisonment. He has further been sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for twenty years under Section 376D IPC with a fine

of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall further

undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences are

to run concurrently.

Prosecution Case

3. The prosecution case is based on the written

application of the informant (PW-3) wherein he has stated that on

30.06.2019 at about 01:30 in the night accused persons, namely,

(1) Ravindra Sharma, (2) Shivdahin Thakur, (3) Ajay Yadav, (4)

Shiv Yadav, (5) Ranjeet Yadav, (6) Bajrangi Sao, and (7) Pappu

Kumar along with two unknown persons entered into the house

from the roof through ladder. As soon as they entered the house,

the accused persons started abusing and with an intention to kill
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.808 of 2023 dt.15-06-2026
3/20

they assaulted the father of the informant on his head with the butt

of pistol due to which he got injured. Thereafter, the informant was

also assaulted. Bajrangi Sao and Pappu Kumar caught hold of the

informant and tied his leg and mouth and Ajay Yadav committed

rape upon his wife and was holding her hands and legs. The

mother of the informant was raped by Ravindra Sharma and

Shivdahin Thakur caught hold of her. Two unknown persons have

caught hold of the father of informant. Bajrangi Sao snatched

golden chain and locket of Bajrangbali from his neck and took

away all the ornaments from the godrej and ransacked the

household articles like T.V. and Fridge etc. They also assaulted

younger brother of the informant and outside the main gate, they

resorted to five rounds of firing due to which Mohalla people

assembled.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid written application of the

informant, FIR being Mahila P.S. Case No. 35 of 2019 dated

30.06.2019 was registered under Sections 457, 341, 323, 307, 379,

504, 376D, 427/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act against

accused persons, namely, (1) Ravindra Sharma, (2) Shivdahin

Thakur, (3) Ajay Yadav, (4) Shiv Yadav, (5) Ranjeet Yadav, (6)

Bajrangi Sao, (7) Pappu Kumar and two unknown persons. After

investigation, police submitted chargesheet bearing Chargesheet
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.808 of 2023 dt.15-06-2026
4/20

No. 50 of 2019 dated 22.09.2019 against this appellant for the

offences punishable under Sections 457, 341, 323, 504, 376D,

427/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act keeping investigation

pending against other accused persons.

5. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad vide

order dated 05.10.2019 took cognizance of the offences punishable

under Sections 341, 457, 323, 504, 376(D), 427, 34 IPC against

the appellant and committed the records to the court of Sessions.

In course of hearing, this Court has been informed that the trial of

other accused persons against whom the supplementary

chargesheet was submitted later on, is presently pending. Charges

were read over and explained to the appellant in Hindi to which he

denied and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, charges were framed

vide order dated 20.10.2020 for the offences punishable under

Sections 323/34, 341/34, 427/34, 457/34, 376D/34 and 504/34 of

the IPC.

6. In course of trial, the prosecution examined as many

as nine witnesses and got exhibited several documents. The list of

prosecution witnesses and the documents are given hereunder in

tabular form:-

List of Prosecution witnesses

Prosecution Name of the Witness Description of the
Witness No. Witness
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.808 of 2023 dt.15-06-2026
5/20

PW-1 Mohan Singh I.O.
PW-2 Mother of the Victim
Informant
PW-3 Informant Injured Witness
PW-4 Father of the Informant Injured Witness
PW-5 Wife of the informant Victim
PW-6 Brother of the Injured Witness
Informant
PW-7 Chandrawati Singh I.O.
PW-8 Dr. Uday Shankar Doctor
PW-9 Dr. Renu Singh Doctor

List of Exhibits on behalf of Prosecution

Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/
Attested by
‘P-1’ Signature of the informant on PW-5
the written application
‘P-2’ Signature of the Informant on
the seizure list of mother of the
informant
‘P-2/1’ Signature of the Informant on
the seizure list of the wife of the
informant
‘P-3’ Signature of PW-5 on the
statement under Section 164
CrPC
‘P-4’ Forwarding Letter of accused
Ravinder Sharma
‘P-5’ Endorsement regarding
Registration of FIR.
‘P-6’ Formal FIR

‘P-7’ Seizure List regarding PW-2

‘P-8’ Signature of ASI Babita on PW-7
Seizure List regarding PW-2
‘P-9’ Seizure List regarding PW5 PW-7

‘PW-10’ Signature of ASI Babita on PW-7
Seizure List regarding PW-5
‘PW-11’ Signature of Dr. Udai Shankar PW-8
on the medical Examination
Report of PW-2
‘PW-12’ Signature of Dr. Renu Singh on PW-8
the Medical Examination
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.808 of 2023 dt.15-06-2026
6/20

Report of PW-2
‘PW-13’ Signature of Dr. Udai Shankar PW-8
on the Medical Examination
Report of PW-5
‘PW-14’ Signature of Dr. Renu Singh on PW-8
the Medical Examination
Report of PW-5
‘PW-15’ Injury report of PW-3 PW-8

‘P-16’ Injury Report of PW-4 PW-8

‘P-17’ Injury Report of PW-6 PW-8

‘P-18’ Medical Report of PW-2 PW-9

‘P-19’ Medical Report of PW-5 PW-9

‘P-20’ FSL Report No. 1320 dated
30.12.2019
‘P-21’ Statement of PW-2 under
Section 164 CrPC
‘P-22’ Statement of PW-5 under
Section 164 CrPC

7. Thereafter, the statement of the appellant was

recorded twice under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure (in short ‘CrPC’). The appellant in his 313 CrPC

statement denied the allegation and amongst other things he

stated that at the age of 70 years, he could neither climb the roof

of the house of the informant nor have committed the crime.

8. The Defence has also produced four witnesses on

behalf of the appellant and also produced some documentary

evidences which are being mentioned hereunder in tabular form:-

List of Defence witnesses

Defence Name of the Witness Description of the
Witness No. Witness
DW-1 Gamandi Sao Other Witness
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.808 of 2023 dt.15-06-2026
7/20

DW-2 Shivcharan Sao Other Witness
DW-3 Shree Ram Sharma Other Witness
DW-4 Akhilesh Kumar Other Witness

List of Exhibits on behalf of Defence

Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/
Attested by
‘D-1’ CC of order dated 22.01.2020
of S. Tr. No. 313/10
‘D-2’ CC of judgment dated
27.04.2011 in S.Tr. No. 180/07

9. The case of the defence is that of a false implication at

the instance of one Pappu Rai with whom the appellant claimed

prior enmity.

Findings of the Learned Trial Court

10. Learned trial court having considered the materials

available on the record, held that the witnesses are cogent,

consistent and corroborative regarding the time, place and manner

of occurrence. It has been held that the ocular testimonies are

supported by medical examination report of the victim (Exhibit ‘P-

18’), Injury Reports (Exhibits ‘P-15’, ‘P-16’ and ‘P-17’),

Production-cum-seizure list (Exhibit ‘P-7’), the FSL Report

(Exhibit ‘P-20’) and attending circumstances. The learned trial

court reached to a conclusion that the prosecution has successfully

proved the fact that the appellant, in furtherance of common

intention with his associates entered the house of the informant by

jumping the terrace of the informant assaulted the informant, his
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.808 of 2023 dt.15-06-2026
8/20

father and brother and committed gang rape upon the victim

(PW2).

11. Learned trial court after considering all the facts and

circumstances of the case concluded that the prosecution has

successfully proved the guilt of the appellant beyond all

reasonable doubts. Accordingly, learned trial court convicted the

appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323,

457/34 and 376D IPC.

Submissions on behalf of the appellant

12. Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel

representing the appellant, has raised several grounds to strengthen

his submissions that the impugned judgment and order of the

learned trial court are based on an erroneous appreciation of the

evidences available on the record. One of the grounds raised

before this Court is that there is no proper compliance with the

mandatory requirements provided under Section 313 CrPC now

Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (in short

‘BNSS’). Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court

towards the form of recording of examination of accused available

in the paperbook. It is submitted that if this Court is satisfied that

there is no proper compliance with Section 313 CrPC, then instead

of examining the other grounds and giving any opinion with
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.808 of 2023 dt.15-06-2026
9/20

respect to the other grounds, it would be appropriate to set aside

the impugned judgment and order on the solitary ground of non-

compliance with Section 313 CrPC, in such circumstance, the

matter would be required to go to the learned trial court by way of

a remand.

Submissions on behalf of the State and Informant

13. Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Ram Prawesh Kumar, learned

counsel for the informant do not contest the submissions of Mr.

Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned Advocate for the appellant.

Consideration

14. In the aforementioned background of the

submissions, we would first consider as to whether there is a

proper compliance with the requirements of Section 313 CrPC.

15. In this connection, when we examine the trial court’s

judgment, it is found that so far as the charges under Section

504/34 and Section 427/34 IPC are concerned, the learned trial

court has observed after going through the evidences as under:-

“….. In this connection, though allegation has been made of

abusing the informant party against the accused as well as

committing mischief in the FIR, yet neither of the witnesses

including the informant have stated to this effect in their
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.808 of 2023 dt.15-06-2026
10/20

testimonies at all. The words of abuse are also not cited in the FIR

also.

Therefore, in my considered opinion prosecution has failed to

prove charge against the sole accused under section 504, 427/34

IPC. Accordingly, the sole accused is hereby acquitted of the

charge under Section 504/34 and 427/34 IPC.”

16. To prove the charges under Sections 341, 323,

457/34 and 376D IPC against the accused-appellant, the learned

trial court relied upon the evidence of the informant (PW-3), his

father (PW-4) and brother (PW-6) who are said to be the injured

witnesses. The learned trial court further relied upon the evidence

of the two female victims-PW-2 (mother of the informant/victim

‘X’) and the victim ‘Y’ (PW-5). The trial court has held that they

have corroborated the evidence of PW-3, PW-4 and PW-6. The

trial court held that the evidence is against the accused of

committing gang rape of victim ‘X’ only and nothing has been

brought on the record to show that the accused Ravindra Sharma

also shared common intention of committing rape of Victim ‘Y’

and no active role has also been attributed against this appellant in

committing rape of victim ‘Y’. The allegation of committing gang

rape of ‘Y’ is on Ajay Yadav, Bajrangi Sao and Pappu Sao. The

trial court found that victim ‘X’ (PW-2) has stated in her cross-
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.808 of 2023 dt.15-06-2026
11/20

examination that during course of being raped, she sustained injury

on her back and other body parts and her bangles were also broken

and on this count defence had taken a plea that in the medical

examination no injury has been found on her any body parts and

I.O. had also not found broken bangles on the alleged place of

occurrence but by observing that the doctrine of falsus in uno,

falsus in omnibus is not applicable in India and the grain is to be

separated from the chaff, the trial court took a view that the whole

evidence of PW-2 cannot be discarded. The solitary evidence of

the prosecutrix is sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution if

it inspires confidence. The trial court has further held that the

testimonies of the witnesses also find objective corroboration from

Exhibit ‘P-18’, ‘P-15’, ‘P-16’ and ‘P-17’. The doctors who

examined the victim and injured of the present case have been

examined as PW-8 and PW-9 and they have proved the medical

examination report (Exhibit ‘18’).

17. Now coming to the statement of the accused under

Section 313 CrPC, which was recorded twice firstly on 18.11.2022

and secondly after conclusion of the argument, the case was fixed

for judgment and vide order dated 08.05.2023, the learned trial

court observed that while writing judgment it was found that the

statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 CrPC is
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.808 of 2023 dt.15-06-2026
12/20

defective as all the circumstances which have come during

evidence of prosecution have not been explained to the sole

accused, therefore, the learned trial court found it necessary for the

ends of justice that all the circumstances against the accused must

be explained to him and statement of the accused under Section

313 CrPC be recorded afresh. Accordingly, on 11.05.2023

statement of accused-appellant under Section 313 CrPC was again

recorded. This Court deems it just and proper to extract the full

form of both the statements of the accused hereunder in order to

take a view as to whether all the incriminating materials and

circumstances have been brought to the notice of the accused

facing the trial:-

Statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC dated 18.11.2022

“iz”u& vkius lkf{k;ksa dk lk{; lquk gS \
mRrj & th gkWA

iz”u & vkids f[kykQ lk{; gS fd vki fnukad 30-06-2019 dks djhc
1%30 cts jk=h esa bl dsl ds lwpd “k”kh lko firk “kadj lko ds ?kj esa
Nr rM+idj ?kj ds fl<+h ls mrjdj ?kj esa ?kqlk vkSj lwpd ds
ek¡ deys”k nsoh dks f”konghu Bkdqj idM+s jgk rFkk vkius cykRdkj
fd;k gSA D;k dguk gS\
mRrj & fcydqy xyr gS fdlh rjg dk cykRdkj ugha gqvk gSA

iz”u & lQkbZ esa D;k dguh gS\
mRrj & ge funksZ’k gSA”

Statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC dated 11.05.2023

“iz”u& vkius lkf{k;ksa dk lk{; lquk gS \
mRrj & th gkWA

iz”u & vkids fo:) lk{; gS fd fnukad 30-06-2019 dks djhc Ms<+
cts jk=h esa vki vU; vfHk;qDrksa ds lkFk feydj jkbZQy fiLrkSy fy,
gq, dsl ds lwpd] “k”kh lko] firk & “kadj lko ds ?kj esa Nr
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.808 of 2023 dt.15-06-2026
13/20

rM+idj ?kj ds lh<+h ls mrjdj ?kj esa ?kqalsA bl laca/k esa vkidks D;k
dguk gS \
mRrj & ljklkj >qB gSA es iSj ls ykpkj gw¡A Nr ugh rM+i ldrk
gw¡A

iz”u & vkids fo:) ;g Hkh lk{; gS fd vki mDr frfFk dks lwpd
ds ?kj esa ?kql
a us ds i”pkr lwpd] lwpd ds firk & “kadj lko] rFkk
lwpd ds ek¡& deys”k nsoh rFkk “kSys”k dqekj ds lkFk ekjihV fd;kA
bl laca/k esa vkidks D;k dguk gS\
mRrj & xyr gSA eS vfHk;qDrks dks turk Hkh ugha gw¡A

iz”u & vkids fo:) ;g Hkh lk{; gS fd mDr frfFk dks vkius
lg&vfHk;qDr f”konfgu Bkdqj }kjk lwpd dh ek¡ deys”k nsoh dks iSj
idM+us ds i”pkr deys”k nsoh ds lkFk cykRdkj fd;kA bl laca/k esa
vkidks D;k dguk gS\
mRrj& xyr gSA

iz”u & vids fo:) ;g Hkh lk{; gS fd vkius mDr frfFk dks vU;
vfHk;qDrks ds lkFk feydj lkekU; vk”k; ls lwpd dh iRuh lqeu
nsoh dk Hkh cykRdkj fd;kA bl laca/k esa vkidks D;k dguk gSA
mRrj & xyr gSA

iz”u & vkids fo:) ;g Hkh lk{; gS fd ?kVuk dkfjr djus ds
i”pkr vU; vfHk;qDrks ds lkFk lwpd ds ?kj yqVikV fd;k rFkk
Qk;fjax djrs gq, lwpd ds ?kj ls pys x,A bl laca/k esa vkidks D;k
dguk gS\
mRrj & dksbZ ?kVuk ugha ?kVh gSA

iz”u & vkids fo:) nLrkosth lk{; ds :i esa izn”kZ% P-1, ls ysdj
P-22, rd vfHk;kstu }kjk vfHkys[k ij yk;k x;k gS] bl laca/k esa
vkidks D;k dguk gS\
mRrj & xyr gSA

iz”u & lQkbZ esa vkidks D;k dguk gSA
mRrj & eSa funks’kZ gw¡A 70 lky ds mez esa u rks eS mlds ?kj dk Nr
rM+i ldrk gw¡A u gh ?kVuk dkfjr dj ldrk gw¡A”

18. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

Chandan Pasi and Others vs. State of Bihar reported in 2025

SCC OnLine SC 2599 had occasion to review the entire case laws

on the scope of the examination under Section 313 CRPC. In

paragraph ‘7’ to paragraph ‘7.3’ their Lordships have placed
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.808 of 2023 dt.15-06-2026
14/20

reliance upon the three judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

We reproduce those paragraphs hereunder for a ready reference:-

“7. This Court, in many judgments, delineated the scope
and object of Section 313 CrPC. The position is no
longer up for debate. Even so, we may refer to certain
pronouncements for the sake of completeness.
7.1. In Sanatan Naskar v. State of W.B.4, this Court as
follows, regarding the scope of the examination under
Section 313 CrPC:
“21. The answers by an accused under Section 313 CrPC are
of relevance for finding out the truth and examining the
veracity of the case of the prosecution. The scope of Section
313 CrPC is wide and is not a mere formality. …
22. As already noticed, the object of recording the statement of
the accused under Section 313 CrPC is to put all incriminating
evidence to the accused so as to provide him an opportunity to
explain such incriminating circumstances appearing against
him in the evidence of the prosecution. At the same time, also
permit him to put forward his own version or reasons, if he so
chooses, in relation to his involvement or otherwise in the
crime. The court has been empowered to examine the accused
but only after the prosecution evidence has been concluded. It
is a mandatory obligation upon the court and, besides ensuring
the compliance therewith, the court has to keep in mind that
the accused gets a fair chance to explain his conduct. The
option lies with the accused to maintain silence coupled with
simpliciter denial or, in the alternative, to explain his version
and reasons for his alleged involvement in the commission of
crime. This is the statement which the accused makes without
fear or right of the other party to cross-examine him. However,
if the statements made are false, the court is entitled to draw
adverse inferences and pass consequential orders as may be
called for in accordance with law. The primary purpose is to
establish a direct dialogue between the court and the accused
and to put every important incriminating piece of evidence to
the accused and grant him an opportunity to answer and
explain. …”
(emphasis supplied)
7.2. In Indrakunwar v. State of Chhattisgarh5, this Court,
through one of us (Sanjay Karol, J.), after consideration
of various judgments formulated the following principles
vis-à-vis this Section:

4. (2010)8 SCC 249
5. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1364
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.808 of 2023 dt.15-06-2026
15/20

“35. A perusal of various judgments15 rendered by this
Court reveals the following principles, as evolved over
time when considering such statements.
35.1 The object, evident from the Section itself, is to
enable the accused to themselves explain any
circumstances appearing in the evidence against them.
35.2 The intent is to establish a dialogue between the
Court and the accused. This process benefits the accused
and aids the Court in arriving at the final verdict.
35.3 The process enshrined is not a matter of procedural
formality but is based on the cardinal principle of natural
justice, i.e., audi alterum partem.
35.4 The ultimate test when concerned with the
compliance of the Section is to enquire and ensure
whether the accused got the opportunity to say his piece.
35.5 In such a statement, the accused may or may not
admit involvement or any incriminating circumstance or
may even offer an alternative version of events or
interpretation. The accused may not be put to prejudice
by any omission or inadequate questioning.
35.6 The right to remain silent or any answer to a
question which may be false shall not be used to his
detriment, being the sole reason.
35.7 This statement cannot form the sole basis of
conviction and is neither a substantive nor a substitute
piece of evidence. It does not discharge but reduces the
prosecution's burden of leading evidence to prove its
case. They are to be used to examine the veracity of the
prosecution's case.
35.8 This statement is to be read as a whole. One part
cannot be read in isolation.
35.9 Such a statement, as not on oath, does not qualify as
a piece of evidence under Section 3 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872; however, the inculpatory aspect as
may be borne from the statement may be used to lend
credence to the case of the prosecution.
35.10 The circumstances not put to the accused while
rendering his statement under the Section are to be
excluded from consideration as no opportunity has been
afforded to him to explain them.
35.11 The Court is obligated to put, in the form of
questions, all incriminating circumstances to the accused
so as to give him an opportunity to articulate his defence.
The defence so articulated must be carefully scrutinized
and considered.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.808 of 2023 dt.15-06-2026
16/20

35.12 Non-compliance with the Section may cause
prejudice to the accused and may impede the process of
arriving at a fair decision.”
7.3. In Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) 6 as subsequently
approved by a bench of three-Judges in Aejaz Ahmad
Sheikh v. State of U.P.7, the Court laid down the following
factors:
“22. The law consistently laid down by this Court can be
summarised as under:
22.1. It is the duty of the trial 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.
22.2. The object of examination of the accused under
Section 313 is to enable the accused to explain any
circumstance appearing against him in the evidence.
22.3. The Court must ordinarily eschew material
circumstances not put to the accused from consideration
while dealing with the case of the particular accused.
22.4. The failure to put material circumstances to the
accused amounts to a serious irregularity. It will vitiate the
trial if it is shown to have prejudiced the accused.
22.5. If any irregularity in putting the material circumstance
to the accused does not result in failure of justice, it
becomes a curable defect. However, while deciding whether
the defect can be cured, one of the considerations will be
the passage of time from the date of the incident.
22.6. In case such irregularity is curable, even the appellate
court can question the accused on the material circumstance
which is not put to him.
22.7. In a given case, the case can be remanded to the trial
court from the stage of recording the supplementary
statement of the accused concerned under Section 313
CrPC.
22.8. While deciding the question whether prejudice has
been caused to the accused because of the omission, the
delay in raising the contention is only one of the several
factors to be considered.”
[See also: Ranvir Yadav v. State of Bihar8 and Naresh
Kumar v. State of Delhi)9]”

6. (2023) 17 SCC 95
7. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 913
8. (2009) 6 SCC 595
9. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1641
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.808 of 2023 dt.15-06-2026
17/20

19. Taking note of the questions put to the accused in the

said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in paragraph ‘9’

and ‘10’ as under:-

“9. The statements extracted above reveal a sorry state of
affairs- an abject failure on the part of the Court in complying
with the basic tenets of law. The statements given by all three
persons are carbon copies of each other. How such statements
can pass muster at the hands of the learned Trial Judge is
something which we fail to understand. Out of the four
questions asked, directly related to the sequence of events,
were only two. The second question was as general as can be,
with reference to only the bare allegations, to which an
omnibus denial was issued. The third was also of similar
nature, saying that it has been alleged and evidenced, and
nothing further. This cannot be said to be the putting of every
material circumstance. It is equally disturbing for us to see that
in the desire to secure a conviction for the accused persons, the
prosecutor also let their duty of assisting the Court in
conducting the examination of the accused under this section
fall by the wayside. The prosecutor is an officer of the Court
and holds a solemn duty to act in the interest of justice. They
cannot act as a defence lawyer, but for the State, with the sole
aim of making the gauntlet of punishment fall on the accused.
[See: Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. State of U.P.10]
10. In view of the above observations, we need not delve into
the other grounds raised, questioning the concurrent
conviction against the appellants herein. On this ground alone,
the Appeals are allowed and the matter is sent back to the
concerned Trial Court to recommence from the state of the
recording of the Section 313 CrPC statements. We may clarify
that the remand is limited to the cases of the three appellants
before us and our observations herein shall not affect the
sanctity of the findings already arrived at, qua the other
accused persons. A trial is a function of memory; it is this
memory that, when translated into spoken word testimony on
oath, becomes evidence, and thus the same is susceptible to
the vagaries of time. Keeping in view the fact that the offence
is from the year 2016, and while being cognizant of the
observations of the Constitution Bench in High Court Bar
Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P011, we direct the
concerned Trial Court to do the needful within four months
from the date of the communication of this judgment.”

10. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 351
11. (2024) 6 SCC 267
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.808 of 2023 dt.15-06-2026
18/20

20. It is evident on going through the judgments of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court that the law is well settled by judicial

pronouncements that it is the duty of the trial court to put each

material circumstance appearing in the evidence against the

accused specifically, distinctively and separately. It has been held

that the failure to put material circumstances to the accused

amounts to a serious irregularity. It will vitiate the trial if it is

shown to have prejudiced the accused.

21. In the case of Chandan Pasi (supra), it has been

emphatically stated that the questions put to him cannot be said to

be the putting of every material circumstance. The role of the

prosecutor has also been deprecated as it has been held that in the

desire to secure a conviction for the accused persons, the

prosecutor also let their duty of assisting the Court in conducting

the examination of the accused under this section fall by the

wayside.

22. Keeping in mind the judicial pronouncements on the

subject when we look at the statement of the accused-appellant

recorded under Section 313 CrPC, we find that only a general and

vague question was put to the appellant suggesting him that there

are evidences against him that on 30.06.2019 at about 1:30 in the

night he crossed over the roof of the house of the informant
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.808 of 2023 dt.15-06-2026
19/20

namely Shashi Sao, son of Shankar Sao and entered into the house

through the stairs and the mother of the informant was caught by

Shivdahin Thakur and the appellant had committed rape on her.

The exhibits marked on behalf of the prosecution were not

specifically pointed out to the accused. Save and except this

general and vague suggestion to the accused-appellant, no

evidence in this connection or the material circumstance on the

basis of which the prosecution wanted to secure the conviction of

the appellant could be brought to the notice of the appellant. In our

considered opinion, this has seriously prejudiced the right of the

accused to get an opportunity to answer each and every material

circumstance if brought to his notice during his statement under

section 313 CrPC.

23. We are therefore of the considered opinion that the

impugned judgment and order of the learned trial court are liable

to be set aside on this ground alone. Accordingly, we set aside the

impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. The

records of this case are remitted to the learned trial court with a

direction to recommence trial from the stage of recording of

Section 313 CrPC statement. We further clarify that the remand is

limited to the extent indicated hereinabove. Keeping in view the

observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph ‘10’ of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.808 of 2023 dt.15-06-2026
20/20

the judgment in case of Chandan Pasi (supra), we direct the

concerned trial court to do the needful within six months from the

date of communication of the judgment and receipt of the trial

courts records.

24. This appeal is accordingly disposed of.

25. Let a copy of the judgment together with the trial

courts records be sent down to the learned trial court through a

special messenger within one week from today.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)

(Kumar Manish, J)
SUSHMA2/Rishi-

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 19.06.2026
Transmission Date 19.06.2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.