Holding

The convictions were unsustainable because the Section 313 examination was not properly conducted and the charges were not properly explained, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.

Summary

The State prosecuted eleven accused, including Latu Mahto, for the murder of Budhu Mahto and related assaults, alleging they formed an unlawful assembly under Section 149 IPC. The trial court convicted all accused under Sections 302/149 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. On appeal, the accused contended that their examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code was not properly conducted, that the charges were not explained to them, and that their presence or participation in the alleged unlawful assembly was not established. The High Court dismissed these contentions and upheld the convictions. The Supreme Court held that the examination under Section 313 was defective, the charges were not properly framed or explained, and without proof of participation the conviction under Section 149 could not stand; consequently, the convictions were set aside and the appellants were acquitted. The Court also emphasized the necessity of recording reasons in judgments to satisfy principles of natural justice.

Issues considered

The adequacy of the examination of the accused under Section 313 CrPC.
Whether the charges were properly framed and explained to the accused.
Whether conviction under Section 149 IPC is sustainable without proof of the accused's presence or participation.
Whether the High Court's judgment was sufficiently reasoned.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 147, s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 307, s. 323, s. 324, s. 326, s. 34, s. 447

Subjects

Section 313 CrPCright to be heardaudi alteram partemunlawful assemblySection 149 IPCconviction reversaljudicial reasoningnatural justice

Judgment

[2008] 8 S.C.R. 1048

(
A LATU MAHTO & ANR. '
;~

v.
THE STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND)
,(Criminal Appeal No. 923 of 2008)
MAY 16, 2008
B
(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 -
Thus, conviction by courts below not maintainable - Penal
D .+
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
...I 152; State of Punjab v. Bhag Singh 2004 (1) SCC 547 - relied
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-
ciple of natural justice enshrined in the maxim audi alteram
B 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 Bhusan Das Gupta & Anr. v. State of West Ben- .. ·~
gal AIR 1969 SC 381; Hate Singh Bhagat Singh v. State of
•
Madhya Bharat AIR 1953 SC 468; Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade ~~

v. State of Maharashtra 1973 (2) SCC 793 and Jai Dev v. State .....
E of Punjab AIR1963 SC 612 - referred to

3.1. Regarding the evidence of PWs.4, 5 and 6, it is ;\!
clear that PW5 did not name the appellant No.1 to be an
assailant while PW3 states that he had assaulted PW 5. )"
'
F Charges framed were common for all the accused per-
j

sons. [Para 10] (1054-H, 1055-A] ..
b
3.2 The submission of the appellant that no appro- ~
priate question was posed during examination u/s. 313
Cr.P.C. and appropriate charges were also not framed is
G accepted. It is not the case of the prosecution that the
appellants had committed murder of BM. Additionally, in -;!..
their evidence PWs 4, 5 & 6 have not spoken a word about
appellants having assaulted any one of them, so far as
the charge u/s 326 IPC. [Para 12] (1055-F-H, 1056-A]
H
LATU MAHTO & ANR. v. THE STATE OF BIHAR 1051
(NOW JHARKHAND) [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

3.3. High Court was clearly wrong in holding that the A
...l!.' charges were properly explained to the accused persons
while recording their statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Therefore,
their conviction as recorded by the trial court and upheld by
the High Court cannot be maintained. The appellants are
acquitted from the charges. [Paras 21 and 22] [1059-F,G] B
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
~ No. 923 of 2008
From the final Judgment and Order dated 13.11.2006 of
the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi on Crl. Appeal No. 384/ c
2000 (R)
S. Chandra Shekhar and Madhu Sharan for the Appellants.
Ratan Kumar Choudhari for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D
-+-
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
"'
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division
Bench of the Jharkhand High Court dismissing the appeal filed
by the appellant. Three appeals were filed by ten accused per- E
sons. In all there were 11 accused persons who were convicted.
Appellants Latu Mahto and Nanu Chand Mahto along with one
Khiru Mahto had filed Criminal Appeal No.384 of2000 (R). Five
others had filed Criminal Appeal No. 362 of 2000 (R). They
i were convicted for offences punishable under Section 302 read F
with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the
'IPC'). Two others had filed Criminal Appeal No. 411 of 2000(R)
and they were found guilty of offence punishable under Section
302/34 and 302/149 IPC.
3. Prosecution version as ur ·Jlded during trial is as fol- G
lows:
·~
Informant Phulchand Mahto wa~ planting sweet potato
alongwith Buddhu Mahto (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased')
in the morning of 17. 7 .1987 in the field situated near their house
H
1052 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.

A in village Taranari, Tola-Beharatand, when appellants Kartik
Mahto, Sukar Mahto and Bhim Mahto came there with bullock
to plough and tried to plough the field belonging to them. This
was protested to and they were forced to retreat by the infor-
mant side. However, within a short time, all the above named
B accused persons along with appellants Beni Mahto, Manjhi
Mahto, Nunuchandra Mahto, Latu Mahto, Koyla Mahto, Khiru
Mahto, Mahru Thakur returned armed variously with Bhakuwa,
farsa, sword, lathi, bows and arrows. According to the infor-
mant, appellant Beni Mahto was carrying Bhakuwa, appellant
c Kartik was carrying sword, appellant Koyal Mahto was carrying
Farsa, appellant Khiru Mahto was carrying Ballan", appellant
Sukar Mahto was carrying bow and arrows, appellant
Nunuchand was carrying Tangri, and appellant Shim Mahto was
carrying Bhakuwa and others were carrying lathi.
D According to informant Phulchand Mahto (PW4), de-
ceased was given Bhakuwa blow by appellant Beni Mahto on +
his neck after which he fell down. Thereafter, Kartik Mahto started
giving sword blows on his father causing various injuries on his
body. It is further asserted that when the informant and his uncle
E Bhola Mahto tried to intervene, they were also assaulted. Ap-
pellants further assaulted Sanjhwa Devi and one Lakhan Mahto,
who were ploughing the field nearby. During this incident, ap-
pellant Sukar Mahto was shooting arrows. The informant and
other injured witnesses raised alarms on which the villagers
F arrived there and saw the occurrence. The appellants thereaf-
ter fled away. The reason behind this incident was said to be
dispute regarding Gairmajarua land which was possessed by
the informant since long. The father of the informant, Budhu Mahto
died on the spot.
G The matter was reported to Nawadih Police, which arrived
at the spot in presence of witnesses and started investigation.
The police prepared inquest report of the dead body of Budhu
Mahto and seized bloodstained Bhakuwa, soil and seven ar-
rows from the spot in presence of witnesses. On the basis of
H the fardbeyan, Nawadih P.S. Case No.38 of 1987 was regis-
LATU MAHTO & ANR. v. THE STATE OF BIHAR 1053
(NOW JHARKHAND) [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.)
~ tered under Sections 147,148,149,323,324,307,302 and 447 A
IPC. The police completed investigation and finally submitted
charge sheet against eleven accused persons who were
charged under Sections 326,147,148,447and 302/149 IPC to
which they pleaded not guilty. They were further charged under
Section 302/34 IPC. B
)- The main defence taken by the appellants was false of
f implication. They also claimed that they were ploughing the land
in question since long. However, the learned trial court after ex-
amining the witnesses found and held all of thefl) guilty of of-
fence punishable under Section 302/149 IPC. The learned trial c
court further found and held guilty appellants Beni Mahto and
Kartik Mahto in Criminal Appeal No.411 of 2000(R) under Sec-
tion 302/34 IPC. All the appellants were sentenced to serve rig-
orous imprisonment for life for the offences proved against them.
-t- However, they were not sentenced for any of the minor offences D
" though found to be proved against them. Appellants Koyla
Mahto, Mahru Mahto and Khiru Mahto died during pendency of
the appeals.
It is to be noted that out of accused persons who had filed
appeals before the High Court, appellants Koyla Mahto, Manjhi E
Mahto and Bhim Mahto died during the pendency of the ap-
peal. Apart from other factual aspects appellants in the appeal
'1
before the High Court had submitted that the examination un-
der Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in
short the 'Cr.P.C.') was not properly done. The details of the F
accusations were not brought to their notice even the charges
framed were not proper. The High Court noted that separate
charge form was not framed by the trial court against the appel-
lant while framing charges. It was held that the accusations were
explained to the appellants during their statements While their G
~
statements were being recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
appellants have been convicted by application of Section 149
IPC. Their presence and/or participation have not been estab-
H
1054 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.
"
')

~
A lished. Examination under Section 313 Gr.P.C. was not prop-
erly done and in any event the charges framed were totally de-
fective.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other
hand supported the judgment of the trial court and the High Court.
B
6. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and with- '!.
out the same it becomes lifeless. (See Raj Kishore Jha v. State
of Bihar and Ors. (2003 (7) SCC 152).
7. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning
c M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971 (1)
All E.R. 1148) observed "The giving of reasons is one of the
fundamentals of good administration". In Alexander Machinery
(Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 ICR 120)(NIRC) it was observed:
"Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice". Reasons
+
D are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the con-
'
troversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at".
..
Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on
recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable
face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually im- <'

E possible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or
exercise the power of judicial review in 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 appli-
1'
cation of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is
F that the affected party can know why the decision has gone
against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice
is spelling out reasons for the order made; in other words, a
speaking out. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily
incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.
G 8. The above position was highlighted in State of Punjab ~
v. Bhag Singh (2004 (1) SCC 547).
9. In the instant case, High Court's judgment is practically
unreasoned.
H 10. Coming to the evidence of PWs 4, 5 &6, it is clear that

~
LATU MAHTO & ANR. v. THE STATE OF BIHAR 1055
(NOW JHARKHAND) [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

~ PW5 Bhola does not name the appellant No.1 to be an assail- A
ant while PW3 states that he had assaulted Bhola-PW 5.
Charges framed were common for all the accused persons and
so far as Section 149 and 302/34 are concerned, it reads as
follows:

"That you on or about the same day at same place were B

)'
members of an unlawful assembly, and in prosecution of
1 the common object of which, caused murder to Budhu
Mahto and assault to Bhola Mahto, Sanjhwa Devi and
Phulchand Mahto and you are, thereby, under Section 149
IPC guilty of causing the said murder and assaults. c
And thereby committed an offence punishable under
Section 149 IPC and within
Forth that you, on or about the same day of same at same
f place did committed murder to Budhu Mahto with common D
.. inter1tion committed an offence."
11. So far as Section 313 statement is concerned the only
relevant question was as follows:
'This is the case of the prosecution witnesses that on E
17.7.1987 at villageTaranari, Tola Behratand, P.S.
Nawadhi, District Bokaro, you together with other accused
persons armed with weapons formed an unlawful assembly
and in furtherance of the common object of the unlawful
assembly, you and other accused persons killed Budhu F
Mahto and in course, of which injured Bhola Mahto,
Sanjhwa Devi· and Phulchand Mahto. What do you have
to say?"
12. It is rightly contented by learned counsel for the appel-

- ·~
lant that no appropriate question was posed during examina-
tion under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and appropriate charges were
also not framed. It is not the case of the prosecution that the
appellants had committed murder of Budhu Mahto. Addition-
G

ally, in their evidence PWs 4, 5 & 6 have not spoken a word
about appellants having assaulted any one of them, so far as H
1056 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.

A the charge under Section 326 IPC is concerned. '
;o.._

13. In Bibhuti Bhusan Oas Gupta &Anr. v. State of West
Bengal (AIR 1969 SC 381), this Court held that the pleader
cannot represent the accused for the purpose of Section 342 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter referred to
B as 'Old Code') which is presently Section 313 Cr.P.C.

14. Section 313 Cr.P.C. reads as follows: '1

"313. Power to examine the accused.-(1) In every inquiry
or I.rial, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally
c to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence
against him, the court-

(a) may at any stage, without previously warning the
accused, put such questions to him as the court
considers necessary;
D +
(b) shall, 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 ~
E
dispensed with the personal attendance of the accused, 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 ).
F (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
G into consideration in such inquiry or trial, and put in
1-- ...__
evidence 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."

15. The forerunner of the said provision in the Old Code
H was Section 342 therein. It was worded thus:
LATU MAHTO & ANR. v. THE STATE OF BIHAR 1057
(NOW JHARKHAND) [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

"342. (1) For the purpose of enabling the accused to . A
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
shall, for the purpose aforesaid, question him generally on B
the case after the witnesses for the prosecution have been
lr examined and before he is called on for his defence.
f
(2) The accused shall not render himself liable to
punishment by refusing to answer such questions, or by
giving false answers to them; but the court and the jury (if c
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
f D
.. for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any
other offence which such answers may te;nd to show he
has committed.
(4) No oath shall be administered to the accused when he
is examined under sub-section (1 )." E
16. 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
'f
Bharat (AIR 1953 SC 468) held that:
F
"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
witness-box. They have to be received in evidence and
G
~
treated as evidence and be duly considered at the trial."
17. Contextually we cannot bypass the decision of a three-
Judge Bench of this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State
of Maharashtra (1973 (2) SCC 793) as the Bench has wid-
ened the sweep of the provision concerning examination of the H
1058 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.

A accused 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
him in the prosecution evidence. The three-Judge Bench made
the following observations therein: (SCC p. 806, para 16)
B "It is trite law, nevertheless fundamental, that the prisoner's
attention should be drawn to every inculpatory material so 'I.
as to enable him to explain it. This is the basic fairness of '
a criminal trial and failures in this area may gravely imperil
the validity of the trial itself, if consequential miscarriage
c 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
established by the accused. In the event of evidentiary
material not being put to the accused, the Court must
D 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
him but not put to him and if the accused is unable to offer
E 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
had been questioned at the proper time in the trial Court
he would not have been able to furnish any good ground ¥
F to get out of the circumstances on which the trial court had
relied for its conviction."
18. What is the object of examination of an accused under
Section 313 of the Code? The section itself declares the object in
explicit language that it is "for the purpose of enabling the accused
G personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence
against him". In Jai Dev v. State of Punjab (AIR1963 SC 612) +--
Gajendragadkar, J. (as he then was) speaking for a three-Judge
Bench has focussed on the ultimate test in determining whether
the provision has been fairly complied with. He observed thus:
H