Supreme Court of India
MAN SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Citation
- 2011 INSC 500
- Decided
- 19 July 2011
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
The conviction was set aside and the appellant acquitted because the perfunctory Section 313 statement and the 32‑year delay violated the principles of fair trial.
Summary
Man Singh was arrested in 1979 with half a bottle of illicit liquor and equipment for liquor manufacture. He was convicted under Section 60(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Excise Act, 1910 and sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine, a conviction affirmed by the trial, appellate and revisional courts. On appeal, the Supreme Court considered the appellant's claim that his Section 313 statement was perfunctory and that not all incriminating circumstances were put to him, causing prejudice. The Court held that the inadequate Section 313 statement, coupled with the extraordinary 32‑year delay and the fact that the appellant had already served part of his sentence, warranted setting aside the conviction. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the appellant was acquitted and ordered to be released.
Issues considered
- Whether a perfunctory statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, failing to put all incriminating circumstances to the accused, justifies setting aside a conviction after a prolonged delay.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Section 313right to be heardacquittaldelay in justiceexcise lawillicit liquorcriminal proceduremiscarriage of justice
Judgment
[2011] 9 S.C.R. 287
. ,
'·--'
MAN SINGH A
v.
STATE OF U.P.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1441 of 2011)
JULY 19, 2011
·~
-· B
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]
Uttar Pradesh Excise Act, 1910: s.60(2) - Conviction
under - Appellant arrested and half bottle of illicit liquor
alongwith implement for manufacturing liquor seized from him c
- Courts below convicted him u/s. 62 and sentenced him to
undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine -
On appeal, held: Contention of appellant that large number
of incriminating circumstances were introduced by the
.. prosecution but the statement of the appellant recorded u/ D
· s.313 Cr.P.C. was completely perfunctory is not acceptable
at this belated stage - Incident occurred in 1979 and the
appellant had faced trial and other liquor proceedings for
almost 32 years and that too for being in possession of only
half a bottle of liquor - Appellant has already undergone 5~ E
months of sentence - In the interest of justice, order of courts
below set aside and he is ordered to be acquitted.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
../ ...
No. 1441 of 2011.
F
From the Judgment & Order dated 30.11.2010 of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh n Crl. Revision
Petition No. 2203 of 1983.
' ' " Ravi Kumar Tomar for the Appellant. G
Ratnakar Dash, Shekhar Raj Sharma, Anuvrat Sharma for
the Respondent.
287 H
288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 9 S.C.R.
-.... r
A The following order of the Court was delivered
ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
B 2. Leave granted.
-
~
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
4. The appellant was arrested on the 11th August, 1979
at about 9:15a.m. and half a bottle of illicit liquor along with lahan
c and other implements for manufacturing liquor were seized from
him. On the completion of the investigation, he was brought to
trial for an offence punishable under Section 60(2) of the U.P.
Excise Act, 1910. The trial court relying on the evidence of the
members of the police party and the Excise Inspector convicted
D him under the aforesaid provision and sentenced him to
undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and to payment of
fine as well. This conviction and sentence has been confirmed
by the first appellate court as well as tre Revisional Court vide
judgments dated 22nd October, 1883 and 30th November, 2010
E respectively. The matter is before us in this background.
5. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for
the appellant has raised primarily one submission before us.
He has pointed out that though a large number of incriminating
F circumstances had been introduced by the prosecution during .. "
the course of the evidence but the statement of the appellant
recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
was completely perfunctory and did not satisfy the tests laid
down by this Court in a string of cases and in this view of the
matter grave prejudice had been suffered by the appellant as ••
G
all incriminating circumstances had not been put to him. It has
•
been submitted that this flaw in the trial required that he should
be acquitted of the offence charged.
6. We have considered the argument and find merit in it.
H Section 313 postulates that all incriminating circumstances
MAN SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. 289
must be put to an accused so.that he is in a position to explain · A
the circumstances against him. We reproduce the statement
in extenso herein below:
"Q1 You have heard the statement of accused which are
against you what you have to say? 8
_,
Ans. They are deposing in enmity.
Q2 Will you lead the defence evidence?
Ans. No. c
Q3 Is there anything else you want to say?
- Ans. I was sitting at the shop of Brijbhan at Shishgarh
Town and I was apprehended by the police persons
during the crime week." D
7. Faced with an obvious difficulty, Mr. Ratnakar Dash, the
learned Senior Counsel for the State of U.P. has submitted that
in this view of the matter, the trial court should be asked to
record the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal E
Procedure yet again so that any lacunae that has crept in can
be filled up. We are not willing to accept this submission at this
belated stage. The incident occurred way back in the year 1979
and the appellant has been facing trial or other legal
proceedings for almost 32 years now and that too for being in
possession of only half a bottle of liquor. We are also told that F
he has undergone five months and 15 days of the sentence that
had been imposed on him. We find that the ends of justice
require that this appeal should be allowed. We, accordingly, set
aside the orders of the courts below. The appellant is ordered
to be acquitted. He is said to be in custody. He shall be G
released forthwith if not wanted in connection with any other
case.
D.G. Appeal allowed.
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Section 313"Sign in to search