Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.313 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.420, 468, 471, 120B – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 – ss.5(2), 5(1)(d) – Appellants were convicted u/ss.420, 468, 471, 120B, IPC r/w ss.5(2), 5(1)(d), PC Act and sentenced accordingly – Incriminating circumstances which had come on record against them in the prosecution evidence were not put to them in their examination u/s.313 CrPC – Trial, if vitiated: Held: Yes – Appellants were asked four identical questions in a mechanical manner without putting them to notice the specific material brought on record by the prosecution witnesses against them – These questions did not reflect the specific prosecution evidence which came on record qua the appellants – Since, all the incriminating evidence were not put to the notice of the appellants, there was a breach of s.313, CrPC as well as the principle of audi alteram partem causing serious prejudice to the appellants to put forth their case – Ultimately, such evidence were relied upon by the court to convict the appellants – Such omission which is a serious irregularity completely vitiated the trial – Appellants given the benefit of doubt because of such omission in the recording of their statements u/s.313, CrPC since the trial court had relied on the evidence adverse to the appellants while convicting them – Conviction and sentence of appellant Nos.1 and 2 untenable – Judgment of the trial court as affirmed by the High Court qua appellant no.3 is set aside on the ground of juvenility – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. [Paras 28, 36-39]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.