Holding

A failure to specifically put material circumstances before the accused under Section 313 CrPC renders the examination a nullity and vitiates the trial, necessitating the setting aside of the conviction.

Summary

The appellant Asraf Ali was charged with murder of Khairul Hoque and was convicted by the trial court under IPC s.304(Part I) and later by the High Court under s.304(Part II). The conviction was based on circumstantial evidence, but the Supreme Court observed that during the examination under Section 313 of the CrPC the trial court failed to specifically put each material circumstance relied upon by the prosecution before the accused. This omission, the Court held, violated the statutory duty under s.313 and the principle of natural justice, rendering the examination a mere formality and vitiating the trial. Consequently, the conviction could not stand. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and the conviction, and discharged the appellant’s bail bond. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

The failure to specifically bring material inculpatory circumstances to the accused's notice during examination under Section 313 CrPC vitiates the trial.
Whether a conviction based on such an examination can be sustained.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 304(Part I), s. 304(Part II)

Subjects

Section 313 CrPCexamination of accusednatural justiceaudi alteram partemcircumstantial evidenceconviction set asidecriminal procedureIndian Penal Codemurdertrial irregularity

Judgment

[2008] 10 S.C.R. 1115

ASRAF ALI A
v.
STATE OF ASSAM
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 174 OF 2001
JULY 17, 2008
B'
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860 - s. 304 (Part I) -Prosecution for mur-
der - In the examination u/s 313 Cr.PC., circumstances re-
lied upon by the prosecution not specifically brought to the c,
notice of the accused - Conviction by trial court u/s 304 (Part
I) - Conviction by High Court u/s 304 (Part II) - On appeal,
held: Failure to bring the circumstances, specifically to the
notice of the accused, whereon reliance was placed to find
him guilty, has rendered the examination u/s 313 Cr.PC. an
). D
empty formality - Trial stands vitiated on this ground alone -
Conviction set aside - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.
313.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- s. 313 (1) (b) - Ex-
amination of accused - Failure to bring to the notice of the E
accused, specifically, the circumstances relied on for convict-
ing him - Effect of - Held: such failure would amount to seri-
ous irregularity vitiating trial if it is proved that this has preju-
diced the accused - This would amount to violation of prin-
ciple of natural justice enshrined in the maxim audi alterem F.
partem.
Appellant-accused was prosecuted uls 302 IPC. Trial
Court on the basis of circumstantial evidence convicted
him u/s 304 (Part I) IPC. High Court observed that in the
examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C., the circumstances relied upon G
by the prosecution were not specifically brought to the
.............._...,_ notice of the accused. But, since no material prejudice
was caused to the accused and he was absconding for
long time and rancorous relationship between the de-
1115 H
1116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.

A ceased and the accused were established, his conviction
was altered to one u/s 304 (Part II) IPC. Hence the present
appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
B HELD: 1. Section 313 Cr'.P.C. casts a duty on the Court
to put in an enquiry or trial, questions to the accused for
the purpose of enabling him to explain any of the circum-
stances appearing in the evidence against him. It follows L
as necessary corollary therefrom that each material cir-
C cumstance appearing in the evidence against the accused
is required to be put to him specifically, distinctly and
separately and failure to do so amounts to a serious ir-
regularity vitiating trial, if it is shown that the accused was
prejudiced. The object of Section 313 Cr.P.C. is to estab-
D lish a direct dialogue between the Court and the accused.
Non-indication of inculpatory material in its relevant fac-
ets by the trial Court to the accused adds to vulnerability
of the prosecution case. Recording of a statement of the
accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a purposeless
E exercise. [Para 13] [1124 G- 1125 D]
2. The provision is not intended to nail the accused
to any position, but to comply with the most salutary prin-
ciple of natural justice enshrined in the maxim audi alterem·
partem. The word "may" in clause (a) of sub-section (1) in
F Section 313 indicates, that even 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 the sub-section it would re-
sult in a handicap to the accused and he can legitimately
G claim that no evidence, without affording him the oppor-
tunity to explain, can be used against him. A circumstance
about which the accused was not asked to explain, can-
not be used against him. [Para 17] [1126 H- 1127 C]
3. In the instant case, no witness has stated that on
H the date of occurrence the accused had caused severe
ASRAF ALI v. STATE OF ASSAM 1117
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

injury to the deceased by assaulting him on the head from A
behind. While in the examination of the accused u/s 313
Cr.P.C., the question to this effect has been put to the ac-
cused, the circumstances which were relied upon by the
trial Court to find the accused guilty were not specifically
brought to the notice of the accused. Therefore, in es- B
sence, his examination under Section 313 was rendered
an empty formality. On that count alone, the impugned
judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and is
set aside. The conviction recorded stands set aside.[Paras
19, 20 and 21] [1128 A-8] c
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra 1984
(4) SCC 116; S. Harnam Singh v. The State AIR 1976 SC
2140; Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. state of Maharashtra 1973
(2) SCC 793; Jai Dev v. State of Punjab AIR 1963 SC 612 -
relied on. D
)-
Hate Singh Bhagat Singh v. State of Madhya Bharat AIR
1953 SC 468 - referred to.
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 174 of 2001 E
From the final Judgment and Order dated 13.6.2000 of
the Gauhati High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1990
S.B. Sanyal, Azim H. Laskar, D. Bharat Kumar, Anand and
Abhijit Sengupta for the Appellant. F
Avijit Roy (for Mis. Corporate Law Group) for the Respon-
dent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. In this appeal challenge is to G
the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Guwahati High
,__~ Court partially allowing the appeal filed by the appellant. Learned
District and Sessions Judge, Kamrup in Sessions Case No.15/
K-G/88 convicted the appellant for offence punishable under
Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the H
1118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.

A 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10
years and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- with default stipulation.
2. By the impugned judgment, learned Single Judge al-
tered the conviction to Section 304 Part II I PC and sentenced
the appellant to undergo RI for 5 years.
B "+-
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
On 14.9.1986 at about 8.00 p.m. an FIR was lodged by
one Abbash Ali (PW-1) before the Officer-in-Charge,
Bharalumukh Police Station mentioning therein that about 9.30
C a.m. on that day the accused Asraf Ali assaulted Khairul Hoque,
son of Nazim Ali with a piece of wood as a result of which said
Khairul Hoque (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') SUS-
, tained injuries on his head. The injured was removed to the
Gauhati Medical College Hospital where he succumbed to inju-
.D ries at about 5.30 p.m. Police registered a case and after
completion of the investigation submitted charge,sheet under
Section 302 IPC. On committal, learned trial Court framed
charges under Section 302 IPC. During the trial prosecution
examined 10 witnesses including the doctor and the lnvestiga-
E tion Officer. Accused also examined 3 witnesses to substanti-
ate its plea of innocence. P.W.1 is the informant who reported
about the incident and attended Gauhati Medical College Hos-
pital. He was present during the inquest. PW-2 Md. Nurul Islam
deposed that he was not in Gauhati and when he was contacted
F by police he informed the police that he knew both accused
and deceased. Police took his help to identify the accused but
accused could not be found. On the day of occurrence, PW-3
Mustt. Nurjahan Begum, was informed by Mozaraf t.hat her hus-
band was assaulted by Asraf and the victim had been admitted
in the Gauhati Medical College Hospital. She saw the dead
G body on the next day when it was brought to her place. Accord-
ing to this witness some clash had been going on between her
husband and accused. PW-4 in his deposition only mentioned
about some quarrel which took place between the deceased
and accused's family, but he did not specifically indicate when
H
ASRAF ALI v. STATE OF ASSAM 1119
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. ]

such occurrence took place. PW-5 Md. Talmizur Rehman was A
examined by the prosecution as eye witness and in his deposi-
tion he stated that occurrence took place one morning in 1986.
According to this witness, one day he found one Sarma had
engaged two laborers for repairing the walls of Khairul's house.
Accused Asraf Ali forbade from Sarma working there. He heard B
their words only from outside. He advanced to Khairul's house
and on going there he found Khairul in his house and accused
was standing at doorstep with a stick in his hand. He did not
see Khairul as to what he had been doing inside the house.
About that time he saw Khairul coming out of the house and ,c
then moving towards the road. Asraf ran after Khairul taking a
lathi in his hand. Moving towards the road he found Khairul lying
on the road. Asrafwas standing at his doorstep holding the lathi
some five or six metres away from the spot where Khairul was
). lying. Approaching Khairul he saw the injury on the head and
D
bleeding from the injury. He went to call a rickshaw to carry Khairul
to hospital and in the meantime Mazafar Hussain (PW-8) had
taken the injured to Kumarpara Nursing Home by another rick-
shaw. He and Maniruddhin went to the Nursing Home and doc-
tor of the Nursing Home advised them to take the injured to the
Medical College Hospital and accordingly he and Maniruddin E
took the injured to the Gauhati Medical College Hospital. PW-6
is a school teacher who spoke about the seizure of wooden
stick from accused Asraf's house. Ext.4 is the seizure list, Ext.
';-
4(1) is his signature. The stick was 2/2% feet long. PW-7 is
doctor. S.I. Barbhuyan who conducted the autopsy found the F
following injuries on the deceased:
" ... Injury No.1-Lacerated injury 7 C.M. length present in
the right parietal region transversely placed and extending
posteriorly. There are 8 stitches with black silk. After
G
removal of the stitches the gap is 0.6 cm wide and is bone
..-< deep .

Injury no.2- Lacerated injury in the scalp 5 cm x 0.5 cm in
the left temporal region - transversely placed and slightly
carving upwards to the parietal region and bone deep. H
..

1120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.
i

A No ligature mark on the neck on dissection, next tissues
are healthy.
Cranium and Spinal Canal:-
Scalp- As described in injury No.1 and injury No.2 clotted +
B blood present underneath the whole of the scalp except in
the frontal region.
Skull- Featured fracture of the skull 16 cm long involving
the frontal and right parietal bone extending from above
the right orbit backwards and posteriority and ending in
c the landoid suceer.... "
4. According to the doctor the cause of death was due to
coma resulting from head injury. The injuries were ante-mortem
and caused by blunt weapon and consistent to be homicidal in
nature. PW-8 is Mozafar Hussain, who at the relevant time was ~
D
clearing the jungle of the well of his rented house at Santipur
and at that time he saw Khairul run past behind him. He saw
accused Asraf Ali going five feet behind him. He saw and found
Khairul lying on the road some 25 yards away from the well.
Khairul sustained injury on his head. He also saw blood coming
E
out of his head. He did not see accused Asraf Ali there. Accord-
ing to this witness he helped the deceased to get admission at
the Medical College Hospital. Khairul died in the hospital. PW-
9 Maniruddin was declared hostile by the prosecution. PW-10
is the investigating officer who stated about the seizure of the
F lathi. According to his evidence the weapon used by the ac- 1

cused was a piece of wood.
5. The accused was examined under Section 313 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code') who
I
G denied his involvement in the offence. Three witnesses were
examined by the accused to support his plea of alibi. The trial
Court on consideration of evidence on record did not accept )..__

the plea of alibi. He found seven ci1cumstances to be clinching
in nature which proved and established the guilt of the accused.
They were as follows:
H
ASRAF ALI v. STATE OF ASSAM 1121
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. ]

" ..... The proved circumstances in the case have A
established that (i) that the accused person had a quarrel
with the deceased regarding sale of land and house; (ii)
that the accused had threatened the deceased with assault;
(iii) that just prior to the incident the accused was seen
standing outside the house of the deceased with a lathi in B
hand; (iv) that the accused was seen chasing the deceased
with a lathi in hand; (v) that soon thereafter the deceased
was found lying on the road with injuries on head; (vi) that
soon after the crime the accused absconded; and (vii)
that the accused led police and produced the weapon of c·
assault. Each of these circumstances has been proved
beyond reasonable doubt and taken collectively leads to
only on conclusion that it was accused Asraf Ali and
accused Asraf Ali alone who had killed the deceased
Khairul Hoque .... " D.
6. As noted above, the trial Court found the accused guilty
and convicted him. One of the main planks of arguments before
the High Court in appeal was that the questions put to the ac-
cused in the examination under Section 313 of the Code did
not focus on the evidence on record and the accused was there- E
fore prejudiced because no definite accusations or statement
of any witness was brought to his notice. Though the High Court
found that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution were
not specifically brought to the notice of the accused it observed
that the object of questioning an accused person under Section F
313 of the Code is to provide an opportunity to the accused of
explaining the circumstances that appear against him in evi-
dence. It was further noted that the evidence against the ac-
cused consisted of circumstantial evidence only and the circum-
stances should have been brought to his notice and his expla-
nation called for. It was noted that the trial Court faltered in its G
,A duty in the examination. But the High Court felt that no material
prejudice was caused to the accused and the accused was found
to be absconding for long time and rancorous relationship be-
tween the deceased and the accused was established. How-
H
1122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S. C.R.
-f

A ever, the High Court found that the proper conviction would be
under Section 304 Part 11 IPC.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the true
purpose and import of Section 313 of the Code has not been !.-
kept in view by the High Court. It is pointed out that none of the +
B witnesses were really eye witnesses. But the Court proceeded '
r-
on the basis as some persons had seen the incidence.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand
submitted that the questions though broadly formulated covered
c the basic features.
9. Section 313 of Code reads as follows:
"313. Power to examine the accused.-(1) In every inquiry
or trial, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally
to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence
D ~
against him, the court-
(a) may at any stage, without previously warning the
accused, put such questions to him as the court considers ~

necessary;
E
(b) sha II, after the witnesses for the prosecution have been
examined and before he is called on for his defence,
question him generally on the case:
Provided that in a summons case, where the court has
F dispensed with the personal attendance of the accused, 1
it may also dispense with his, examination under clause
(b).
(2) No oath shall be administered to the accused when
he is examined under sub~section (1 ).
G
(3) The accused shall not render himself liable to
punishment by refusing to· answer such questions, or by >-...
giving false answers to them.
(4) The answers given by the accused may be taken into
H consideration in such inquiry or trial, and put in evidence
ASRAF ALI v. STATE OF ASSAM 1123
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. ]

for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any A
other offence which such answers may tend to show he
has committed."
10. The forerunner of the said provision in the Old Code
~ was Section 342 therein. It was worded thus:
B
"342. (1) For the purpose of enabling the accused to
explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence
against him, the court may, at any stage of any inquiry or
trial, without previously warning the accused, put such
questions to him as the court considers necessary, and c
shall, for the purpose aforesaid, question him generally on
the case after the witnesses for the prosecution have been
examined and before he is called on for his defence.
(2) The accused shall not render himself liable to
J punishment by refusing to answer such questions, or by D
giving false answers to them; but the court and the jury (if
any) may draw such inference from such refusal or answers
as it thinks just.
(3) The answers given by the accused may be taken into
consideration in such inquiry or trial, and put in evidence E
for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any
other offence which such answers may tend to show he
has committed.

(4) No oath shall be administered to the accused when he F
is examined under sub-section (1 )."

11. Dealing with the position as the section remained in
the original form under the Old Code, a three-Judge Bench of
this Court in Hate Singh Bhagat Singh v. State of Madhya
Bharat (Al R 1953 SC 468) that: G
,.., "The statements of the accused recorded by the
Committing Magistrate and the Sessions Judge are
intended in India to take the place of what in England and
in America he would be free to state in his own way in the
H
1124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.

A witness-box. They have to be received in evidence and
treated as evidence and be duly considered at the trial."
12. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
(1984 (4) sec 116) it was inter-alia noted as follows:
~

B "143- Apart from the aforesaid comments there is one
vital defect in some of the circumstances mentioned above
and relied upon by the High Court viz., circumstances Nos.
4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16and17. As these circumstances
were not put to the appellant in his statement under Section
c 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 they must be
completely excluded from consideration because the ,;

appellant did not have any chance to explain them. This
has been consistently held by this Court as far back as
1953 where in the case of Hate Singh Bhagat Singh v.
State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1953 SC 468) this Court .A.
D
held that any circumstance in respect of which an accused
was not examined under Section 342 of the Criminal
Procedure Code cannot be used against him. Ever since
this decision, there is a catena of authorities of this Court
uniformly taking the view that unless the circumstance
E appearing against an accused is put to him in his
examination under Section 342 of the old Code
(corresponding to Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973), the same cannot be used against him. In
Shamu Balu Chaugule v. State of Maharashtra (1976 (1)
F i
SCC 438) this Court held thus: (SCC para 5, p. 440)
The fact that the appellant was said to be absconding,
not having been put to him under Section 342, Criminal
Procedure Code, could not be used agarnst him."
G 13. Section 313 of the Code casts a duty on the Court to ~

'
put in an enquiry or trial questions to the accused for the pur- ....
pose of enabling him to explain any of the circumstances ap-
pearing in the evidence against him. It follows as necessary
corollary therefrom that each material circumstance appearing
H in the evidence against the accused is required to be put to him
ASRAF ALI v. STATE OF ASSAM 1125
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

specifically, distinctly and separately and failure to do so amounts A
to a serious irregularity vitiating trial, if it is shown that the ac-
cused was prejudiced. The object of Section 313 of the Code
is to establish a direct dialogue between the Court and the ac-
cused. If a point in the evidence is important against the ac-
cused, and.the conviction is intended to be based upon it, it is B ,
right and proper that the accused should be questioned about
the matter and be given an opportunity of explaining it. Where
no specific question has been put by the trial Court on ·an incul-
patory material in the prosecution evidence, it would vitiate the
trial. Of course, all these are subject to rider whether they have c
caused miscarriage of justice or prejudice. This Court also ex-
pressed similar view in S. Harnam Singh v. The State (AIR 1976
SC 2140), while dealing with Section 342 of the Criminal Pro-
cedure Code, 1898 (corresponding to Section 313 of the
Code). Non-indication of inculpatory material in its relevant fac-
0
ets by the trial Court to the accused adds to vulnerability of the
prosecution case. Recording of a statement of the accused
under Section 313 is not a purposeless exercise.
14. Contextually we cannot bypass the decision of a three-
Judge Bench of this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State E
of Maharashtra (1973 (2) SCC 793) as the Bench has widened
the sweep of the provision concerning examination of the ac-
cused after closing prosecution evidence. Learned Judges in
that case were considering the fallout of omission to put to the
accused a question on a vital circumstance appearing against F
' him in the prosecution evidence. The three-Judge Bench made
the following observations therein: (SCC p. 806, para 16)

"It is trite law, nevertheless fundamental, that the prisoner's
attention should be drawn to every inculpatory material so
as to enable him to explain it. This is the basic fairness of ,G
a criminal trial and failures in this area may gravely imperil
the validity of the trial itself, if consequential miscarriage
of justice has flowed. However, where such an omission
has occurred it does not ipso facto vitiate the proceedings
and prejudice occasioned by such defect must be H
1126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.
1
A established by the accused. In the event of evidentiary
material not being put to the accused, the court must
ordinarily eschew such material from consideration. It is
also open to the appellate court to call upon the counsel
for the accused to show what explanation the accused
has as regards the circumstances established against .,.,.
B
him but not put to him and if the accused is unable to offer
the appellate court any plausible or reasonable explanation
of such circumstances, the court may assume that no
acceptable answer exists and that even if the accused
c had been questioned at the proper time in the trial court
he would not have been able to furnish any good ground
to get out of the circumstances on which the trial court had
relied for its conviction."
15. What is the object of examination of an accused under
D Section 313 of the Code? The section itself declares the object
~
in explicit language that it is "for the purpose of enabling the
accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in
I
the evidence against him"; In Jai Dev v. State of Punjab
t-
(AIR1963 SC 612) Gajendragadkar, J. (as he then was) speak-
E ing for a three-Judge Bench has focussed on the ultimate test
in determining whether the provision has been fairly complied
with. He obseNed thus:
'The ultimate test in determining whether or not the accused
has been fairly examined under Section 342 would be to
F inquire whether, having regard to all the questions put to
him, he did get an opportunity to say what he wanted to
say in respect of prosecution case against him. If it appears
that the examination of the accused person was defective
and thereby a prejudice has been caused to him, that
G would no doubt be a serious infirmity."
16. Thus it is well settled that the provision is mainly in-
tended to benefit the accused and as its corollary to benefit the
court in reaching the final conclusion.

H 17. At the same time it should be borne in mind that the
ASRAF ALI v. STATE OF ASSAM 1127
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. ]

provision is not intended to nail him to any position, but to com- A
ply with the most salutary principle of natural justice enshrined
in the maxim audi alteram partem. The word "may" in clause
(a) of sub-section(1) in Section 313 of the Code indicates, with-
out any doubt, that even if the court does not put any question
under that clause the accused cannot raise any grievance for it. B
But if the court fails to put the needed question under clause (b)
of the sub-section it would result in a handicap to the accused
and he can legitimately claim that no evidence, without afford-
ing him the opportunity to explain, can be used against him. It is
now well settled that a circumstance about which the accused c
was not asked to explain cannot be used against him.
18. In certain cases when there is perfunctory examina-
tion under Section 313 of the Code, the matter is remanded to
the trial Court, with a direction to re-try from the stage at which
the prosecution was closed. D
19. In the instant case, the questions put to the accused in
his examination under Section 313 read as follows:
"The witnesses have stated in their evidence that at about
9.30 a.m. on the day of occurrence you caused severe E
injuries to Khairul Hoque by assaulting him on the head
from behind with a piece of timber and that in the evening
on the very day he succumbed to the injuries in Guwahati
Medical College Hospital. You may say if you have any
regarding the evidence. F
P.W.10Ahindra KumarKalita (S.I. of Police) has stated in
his evidence that during his investigation into this case
when you produced a piece of timber he seized it through
Ext.4. You may say if you have any regarding this evidence.
G
You may say if you have any as regards allegation of
committing murder leveled against you and other
evidence .
•
You may adduce evidence in defence if you have any.
Summon witnesses." H
1128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.

A 20. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the appel-
lant no witness has stated that on the date of occurrence the
accused had caused severe injury to the deceased by assault-
ing him on the head from behind. The circumstances which were
relied upon by the trial Court to find the accused guilty were not
B specifically brought to the notice of the accused. Therefore, in
essence, his examination under Section 313 of the Code was
rendered an empty formality. On that count alone, the impugned
judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and is set aside.
The conviction recorded stands set aside. The bail bond of the
C appellant who is on bail shall stand discharged.
21 . The appeal is allowed.
K.K.T. Appeal allowed.

--- '