/2023 INSC 0422/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1471 of 2023 
[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.11256 of 2018]
Raj Kumar @ Suman …..Appellant
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi)             …..Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Abhay S. Oka, J.
1. Leave granted. 
FACTUAL ASPECTS
2. Appellant   (accused   no.2)   was   convicted   by
the   Sessions   Court   by   the   Judgment   dated   27 th
August   2003   for   the   offences   punishable   under
Section   302   read   with   Section   120­B   of   the   Indian
Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256  of 2018
Page  1  of  33

Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’).   For the offence under
Section   302,   the   appellant   was   sentenced   to
undergo   life   imprisonment.     He   was   also   convicted
for   the   offence   punishable   under   Section   307   read
with   Section   120­B   of   IPC,   for   which   he   was
sentenced   to   undergo   rigorous   imprisonment   for   7
years.  
3. The   allegation   against   this   accused,   along
with   one   Vimal   (since   deceased)   and   five   others,
was   that   on   01 st
  October   1995,   around   03:30   pm,
they conspired to criminally intimidate and commit
the murder of Jawahar Lal (PW­3) and his relatives.
The   allegation   is   that   PW­3   was   running   his   own
cable   TV   network,   and   the   accused   wanted   him   to
stop   the   said   cable   TV   network.     The   allegation   of
the   prosecution   is   that   on   01 st
  October   1995   at
about   03:30  pm,  the   accused   entered  the   house  of
PW­3   Jawahar   Lal   where   he,   along   with   his   family
members, were residing.  Accused nos.4 and 5 fired
Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256  of 2018
Page  2  of  33

bullets  from   their   revolvers  at   Omi   Devi,   mother   of
PW­3 and  Chander  Shekhar  (deceased –  brother  of
PW­3).   Accused no.3 and deceased Vimal attacked
Chander Shekhar (deceased) and Omi with daggers
and   knives.     PW­3   and   PW­7   suffered   serious
injuries.     As   noted   earlier,   Chander   Shekhar   died.
We   may   note   that   admittedly   the   only   allegation
against the present appellant (accused no.2) is that
while   6   other   accused   entered   the   house   of   PW­3,
the   appellant   was   standing   near   the   gate   of   the
gallery   with   katta   (country­made   handgun)   in   his
hand.   By the impugned judgment, the High Court
has confirmed the conviction of the appellant.
SUBMISSIONS
4. The   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the
appellant   pointed   out   that   only   PW­5   Ved   Prakash
deposed   that   the   appellant   was   standing   near   the
gate of the gallery with  katta  in his hand.  However,
PW­3,   in   the   cross­examination,   accepted   that   he
Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256  of 2018
Page  3  of  33

had   not   seen   the   present   appellant   on   the   day   of
the incident and his name was told to him by PW­5.
Learned   counsel   submitted   that   though   the   High
Court, in paragraph 84 of the impugned judgment,
has   recorded   a   finding   that   even   PW­13   had   seen
the   appellant,   in   fact,   PW­13   has   not   deposed
anything about the appellant.
5. He   submitted   that   the   only   circumstance
appearing in the evidence against the appellant that
he was standing outside near the gate of the gallery
with   a   katta   was   not   put   to   him   in   his   statement
under   Section   313   of   the   Code   of   Criminal
Procedure,   1973   (for   short,   ‘CrPC’).     He   submitted
that   this   argument   was   specifically   canvassed
before   the   High   Court,   which   finds   a   place   in   the
written   submissions   filed   on   behalf   of   the
appellants,   but   the   High   Court   did   not   consider  it.
He relied upon decisions of this Court in the case of
Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256  of 2018
Page  4  of  33

Ranvir   Yadav   v.   State   of  Bihar 1
;   Sukhjit   Singh
v.   State   of   Punjab 2
;   Maheshwar   Tigga   v.   State
of   Jharkhand 3
;   and   Samsul   Haque   v.     State   of
Assam 4
.     He   submitted   that   as   a   result   of   the
failure   of   the   Trial   Court   to   put   the   only
circumstance   appearing   against   the   appellant
during his examination under Section 313 of CrPC,
grave   prejudice   has   been   caused   to   the   appellant
resulting in failure of justice.
6. Learned   counsel   representing   the
respondent­State   submitted   that   the   appellant   did
not cross­examine PW­5.  He relied upon a decision
of this Court in the case of   Satyavir Singh Rathi,
Assistant   Commissioner   of   Police   &   Ors.   v.
State through Central Bureau of Investigation 5
.
He submitted that in this decision, this Court held
1   (2009) 6 SCC 595
2   (2014) 10 SCC 270
3   (2020) 10 SCC 108
4   (2019) 18 SCC 161
5   (2011) 6 SCC 1.
Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256  of 2018
Page  5  of  33

that   the   objection   regarding   the   omission   or   defect
in recording the statement under Section 313, CrPC
must be raised at the earliest so that the defect can
be   cured.     He   submitted   that   the   said   contention
was   raised   16   years   after   the   passing   of   the
judgment   by   the   Trial   Court.     He   would,   therefore,
submit that, at this stage, this objection cannot be
sustained.  He submitted that the very fact that the
said   objection   was   not   raised   at   any   time   earlier
shows   that   there   is   no   prejudice   caused   to   the
appellant due to the failure of the Court to put the
only   circumstance   against   the   appellant   to   him
while   recording   his   statement   under   Section   313,
CrPC. 
OUR VIEW
7. We   have   considered   the   submissions.     There
is   no   dispute   that   the   only   allegation   against   the
appellant   was   that   while   six   accused   entered   the
Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256  of 2018
Page  6  of  33

house of PW­3, the appellant was standing  outside
with   a   katta   in   his   hand.     In   paragraph   84   of   the
impugned   judgment,   the   High   Court   has   observed
that the evidence of PW­3, as regards the appellant,
creates some doubt.   However, it was held that the
evidence of PW­5 and PW­13 is clear and consistent
as   regards   his   involvement.     We   have,   therefore,
perused   the   evidence   of   the   said   three   prosecution
witnesses.     PW­3   Jawahar   Lal   deposed   about   the
entry   of   6   other   accused   into   his   house   at   about
03:30 pm on 01 st
 October 1995.  He did not depose
that   the   appellant   was   standing   outside   with   a
katta   in his hand.   In further examination­in­chief,
he   stated   that   in   his   statement   recorded   by   the
police, he has wrongly mentioned that the accused­
Rajinder   Kumar  was  guarding   the   spot.     He   stated
that   it   was   the   appellant   who   was   guarding   the
spot.     The   High   Court   has   expressed   doubt   about
the   version   of   PW­3   concerning   the   involvement   of
Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256  of 2018
Page  7  of  33

the   present   appellant.     The   reason   given   by   the
High Court is that PW­3 also stated that on the day
of the incident, he did not see the appellant, but his
name   was   told   to   him   by   PW­5   Ved   Prakash.
Therefore,   the   testimony   of   PW­3   cannot   be   relied
upon to implicate the appellant.  
8. We   have   carefully   perused   the   evidence   of
PW­13.     Though   the   High   Court   has   observed   that
PW­13   has   ascribed   a   role   to   the   appellant   of
standing   outside   with   a   katta   in   his   hand,   we   find
that   PW­13   has   made   no   such   statement   in   his
evidence.  
9. Thus, what remains is the evidence  of  PW­5.
All   that   he   stated   in   his   examination­in­chief   was
that  he  saw Raj Kumar  standing  at  the gate of  the
gallery  with   a   katta   in   his   hand.     He   identified   the
appellant in the Court. 
10. Hence,   the   only   circumstance   brought   on
record   against   the   present   appellant   is   in   the
Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256  of 2018
Page  8  of  33

evidence   of   PW­5,   who   stated   that   the   appellant
was   standing   outside   near   the   gate   of   the   gallery
with   a   katta   in   his   hand.     No   overt   act   was
attributed to him.   There is a long statement of the
appellant   under   Section   313   of   CrPC   in   which   as
many   as   42   questions   were   put   to   the   appellant.
Question   no.13   is   about   what   PW­5   deposed.
Admittedly, it was not put to the appellant that it is
brought   on   record   that   he   was   standing   outside
near the gate of the gallery with a  katta  in his hand.
It   is   true   that   the   answer   given   by   him   to   every
question is “I don’t know”.   If all the circumstances
put to the appellant in his statement under Section
313   CrPC   are   carefully   perused,   any   person   of
ordinary   intelligence   will   get   the   impression   that
none   of   the   prosecution   witnesses   has   stated
anything against him.  That is why one cannot find
fault   with   the   appellant   when   he   gave   standard
answers   to   every   question   as   nothing   adverse
Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256  of 2018
Page  9  of  33

against him was put to him.  We may note here that
in   paragraph   13   of   the   written   submissions   by   the
appellant   before   the   High   Court,   a   specific
contention   was   raised   that   the   only   circumstance
appearing against the appellant was not put to him
in   the   statement   under   Section   313   of   CrPC.     It   is
not in dispute that this part of the argument is not
considered   by   the   High   Court.     We   may   also   note
that   the   Trial   Court   has   not   reproduced   the
submissions   made   by   the   learned   counsel
appearing for the accused.  
11. Thus,   we   will   have   to   proceed   on   the   footing
that   the   only   alleged   incriminating   circumstance
appearing   against   the   appellant   in   the   evidence
produced   by   the   prosecution   has   not   been   put   to
him   in   his   statement   under   Section   313   of   CrPC
and, therefore, he had no opportunity to explain the
said   circumstance.     Moreover,   his   conviction   is
based only on this circumstance. 
Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256  of 2018
Page  10  of  33

12. Therefore,   we   will   have   to   consider   the   effect
of   the   aforesaid   omission   on   the   part   of   the   Trial
Court.     The   law   on   this   aspect   is   no   longer   res
integra .     Apart   from   the   decisions   relied   upon   by
the   learned   counsel   representing   the   parties,   there
are   other   important   decisions   on   this   aspect.     The
first relevant judgment is of a Bench of four Hon’ble
Judges  of   this   Court   in   the  case  of   Tara   Singh   v.
State 6
.     The   Court   considered   the   provision   of
Section   342   of   the   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure,
1898   (for   short,   ‘CrPC   of   1898’).   Section   313   of
CrPC   and  Section  342   of   CrPC   of   1898  are   in   pari
materia .  In paragraph 18, this Court held thus : 
“18.   It   is   important   therefore   that   an
accused   should   be   properly   examined
under   Section   342   and,   as   their
Lordships of the Privy Council indicated
in   Dwarkanath
Varma   v.   Emperor   [ Dwarkanath
Varma   v.   Emperor ,   AIR   1933   PC   124   at
p. 130 : 1933 SCC OnLine PC 11] ,   if a
point   in   the   evidence   is   considered
6   1951 SCC OnLine SC 49
Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256  of 2018
Page  11  of  33

important   against   the   accused   and
the   conviction   is   intended   to   be
based   upon   it,   then   it   is   right   and
proper   that   the   accused   should   be
questioned   about   the   matter   and   be
given   an   opportunity   of   explaining   it
if   he   so   desires.   This   is   an   important
and   salutary   provision   and   I   cannot
permit it to be slurred over.  I regret to
find   that   in   many   cases   scant   attention
is paid to it, particularly in the Sessions
Courts.   But   whether   the   matter   arises
in   the   Sessions   Court   or   in   that   of   the
Committing   Magistrate,   it   is   important
that   the   provisions   of   Section   342
should be fairly and faithfully observed.”
(emphasis added)
Again in paragraph 23, this Court held thus:
“23.   Section   342   requires   the   accused
to   be   examined   for   the   purpose   of
enabling   him   “to   explain   any
circumstances appearing in the evidence
against   him”.   Now   it   is   evident   that
when   the   Sessions   Court   is   required   to
make   the   examination   under   this
section,   the   evidence   referred   to   is   the
evidence   in   the   Sessions   Court   and   the
circumstances which appear against the
accused in that court. It is not therefore
enough   to   read   over   the   questions   and
answers   put   in   the   Committing
Magistrate's  Court  and  ask  the  accused
whether   he   has   anything   to   say   about
Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256  of 2018
Page  12  of  33

them. In the present case, there was not
even   that.   The   appellant   was   not   asked
to   explain   the   circumstances   appearing
in   the   evidence   against   him   but   was
asked   whether   the   statements   made
before   the   Committing   Magistrate   and
his   answers   given   there   were   correctly
recorded. That does not comply with the
requirements of the section.”
The second important decision on this aspect is the
decision of a Bench of three Hon’ble Judges of this
Court.     This   is   a   decision   in   the   case   of   Shivaji
Sahabrao   Bobade   &   Anr.   v.   State   of
Maharashtra 7
.     In   paragraph   16   of   the   decision,
this   Court   examined   the   issue   of   non­compliance
with   the   requirements   of   Section   342   of   CrPC   of
1898.  Paragraph 16 reads thus:
“16.   The   discovery   of   incriminating
materials pursuant to confessions made
by   the   accused   constitutes   the   third
category   of   evidence.   Obviously,   the
confessions   are   inadmissible   but   the
discoveries   are,   provided   they   are
pertinent to the guilt of the accused. So
far   as   Accused   2   is   concerned,   his
statement  resulted in   the  discovery  of   a
knife   ( Vide   Panchnama,   Ext.   13).   Of
7   (1973) 2 SCC 793
Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256  of 2018
Page  13  of  33

course, knives were discovered long  ago
and   not   now   but   this   knife   lay   buried
and   was   recovered   by   the  accused   from
a pit in the corner of a wall of his house.
There was human blood on the blade of
the   knife,   MO   5/1   according   to   the
chemical   analyst's   report.   The   second
accused's   clothes   also   were   picked   up
by   him   pursuant   to   his   statement.   He
had   worn   a   shirt   and   pants   on   the   day
of   occurrence   and   PW   13,   a   neighbour
deposes   that   the   second   accused   had
come   to   him   at   about   6   p.m.   on   the
Monday   when   Hariba   died   and   had
mentioned   to   him   that   since   his   own
house was locked he might be permitted
to   keep   his   clothes   in   the   witnesses
house.   Thereafter   he   left   his   clothes
under   an   empty   khokha   from   where   he
himself   took   them   out   when   he   later
came   in   the   company   of   the   police.
There   are   blood­stains   on   the   clothes
and   it   is   found   by   the   chemical
examiner   that   the   blood   on   the   pants
are   of   the   same   blood   group   as   that   of
the deceased. When the second accused
was   asked   under   Section   342,   CrPC
about   the   report   of   the   chemical
examiner   noticing   blood   stains   on   the
shirt,   MO   5/2   and   of   human   blood   on
the   blade   of   the   knife,   MO   5/1,   he
merely   answered,   “I   do   not   know”.   He
also   described   as   false   the   fact   of   his
recovering   the   clothes   and   the   knife.
Bald   denial   notwithstanding,   we   are
inclined   to   believe,   with   the   learned
Judges of the High Court, that the knife
and the shirt have been identified as his
Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256  of 2018
Page  14  of  33

and   since   he   had   recovered   them,
thereby   making   the   police   discover   the
fact,   there   was   incriminating   inference
available   against   the   said   accused.   We
may   notice   here   a   serious   omission
committed   by   the   trial   Judge   and   not
noticed   by   either   court.   The   pants
allegedly   worn   at   the   time   of   the   attack
by   the   second   accused   has   stains   of
blood   relatable   to   the   group   of   the
deceased.   This   circumstance   binds   him
to   the   crime   a   little   clear   but   it   is
unfortunate   that   no   specific   question
about this circumstance has been put to
him   by   the   Court.   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   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   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
Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256  of 2018
Page  15  of  33

established   against   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
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.   In
such   a   case,   the   Court   proceeds   on   the
footing   that   though   a   grave   irregularity
has   occurred   as   regards   compliance
with   Section   342,   CrPC,   the   omission
has   not   been   shown   to   have   caused
prejudice to the accused. In the present
case,   however,   the   High   Court,   though
not   the   trial   court   has   relied   upon   the
presence   of   blood   on   the   pants   of   the
blood   group   of   the   deceased.   We   have
not   been   shown   what   explanation   the
accused   could   have   offered   to   this
chemical   finding   particularly   when   we
remember   that   his   answer   to   the
question  regarding   the  human  blood  on
the   blade   of   the   knife   was   “I   do   not
know”. Counsel for the appellants could
not make out any intelligent explanation
and   the   “blood”   testimony   takes   the
crime   closer   to   the   accused.   However,
we are not inclined to rely over much on
this   evidentiary   circumstance,   although
we   should   emphasise   how   this
inadvertance of the trial court had led to
Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256  of 2018
Page  16  of  33

a   relevant   fact   being   argued   as
unavailable   to   the   prosecution.   Great
care is expected of Sessions Judges who
try   grave   cases   to   collect   every
incriminating circumstance and put it to
the accused even though at the end of a
long   trial   the   Judge   may   be   a   little
fagged out.”
(emphasis added)
13. Then we come to the decision of this Court in
the   case   of   S.   Harnam   Singh   v.   State   (Delhi
Admn.) 8
.  In paragraph 22, this Court held thus :
“22.   Section 342 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure,   1898,   casts   a   duty   on   the
court   to   put,   at   any   enquiry   or   trial,
questions to the accused for the purpose
of   enabling   him   to   explain   any
circumstances appearing in the evidence
against   him.   It   follows   as   a   necessary
corollary   therefrom   that   each
material   circumstance   appearing   in
evidence   against   the   accused   is
required to be put to him specifically,
distinctly   and   separately.   Failure   to
do   so   amounts   to   a   serious
irregularity   vitiating   the   trial   if   it   is
shown   to   have   prejudiced   the
accused.   If   the   irregularity   does   not,
in fact, occasion a failure of justice, it
is   curable   under   Section   537,   of   the
Code. ”
8   (1976) 2 SCC 819
Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256  of 2018
Page  17  of  33

(emphasis added)
14. Then   we   come   to   a   decision   in   the   case   of
Samsul Haque 4
 relied upon by the learned counsel
for   the   appellant.     In   paragraphs   21   to   23,   this
Court held thus : 
“21.   The   most   vital   aspect,  in   our   view,
and what drives the nail in the coffin in
the   case   of   the   prosecution   is   the
manner in which the court put the case
to   Accused   9,   and   the   statement
recorded   under   Section   313   CrPC.   To
say the least it is perfunctory.
22.   It   is   trite   to   say   that,   in   view   of
the   judgments   referred   to   by   the
learned Senior Counsel, aforesaid, the
incriminating material is to be put to
the   accused   so   that   the   accused   gets
a   fair   chance   to   defend   himself.   This
is   in   recognition   of   the   principles   of
audi   alteram   partem.   Apart   from   the
judgments   referred   to   aforesaid   by   the
learned Senior Counsel, we may usefully
refer   to   the   judgment   of   this   Court
in   Asraf   Ali   v.   State   of   Assam   [ Asraf
Ali   v.   State of Assam , (2008) 16 SCC 328
:   (2010)   4   SCC   (Cri)   278]   .  The   relevant
Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256  of 2018
Page  18  of  33

observations   are   in   the   following
paragraphs : (SCC p. 334, paras 21­22)
“ 21 . Section 313 of the Code 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
circumstances   appearing   in   the
evidence   against   him.   It   follows   as
necessary   corollary   therefrom   that
each   material   circumstance
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   irregularity
vitiating trial, if it is shown that the
accused was prejudiced.
22 .   The   object   of   Section   313   of
the   Code   is   to   establish   a   direct
dialogue   between   the   Court   and
the   accused.   If   a   point   in   the
evidence is important against the
accused,   and   the   conviction   is
intended to be based upon it, it is
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
inculpatory   material   in   the
prosecution   evidence,   it   would
Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256  of 2018
Page  19  of  33

vitiate  the   trial.  Of  course,  all   these
are   subject   to   rider   whether   they
have   caused   miscarriage   of   justice
or   prejudice.   This   Court   also
expressed   a   similar   view   in   S.
Harnam   Singh   v.   State   (Delhi
Admn.)   [ S.   Harnam   Singh   v.   State
(Delhi   Admn.) ,   (1976)   2   SCC   819   :
1976   SCC   (Cri)   324]   while   dealing
with   Section   342   of   the   Criminal
Procedure   Code,   1898
(corresponding to Section 313 of the
Code). Non­indication of inculpatory
material in its relevant facets by the
trial   court   to   the   accused   adds   to
the   vulnerability   of   the   prosecution
case.   Recording   of   a   statement   of
the   accused   under   Section   313   is
not a purposeless exercise.”
23.   While   making   the   aforesaid
observations, this Court also referred to
its   earlier   judgment   of   the   three­Judge
Bench   in   Shivaji   Sahabrao
Bobade   v.   State   of   Maharashtra   [ Shivaji
Sahabrao   Bobade   v.   State   of
Maharashtra ,   (1973)   2   SCC   793   :   1973
SCC   (Cri)   1033]   ,   which   considered   the
fallout   of   the   omission   to   put   to   the
accused   a   question   on   a   vital
circumstance   appearing   against   him   in
the   prosecution   evidence,   and   the
requirement that the accused's attention
should   be   drawn   to   every   inculpatory
material   so   as   to   enable   him   to   explain
Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256  of 2018
Page  20  of  33

it.   Ordinarily,   in   such   a   situation,   such
material as not put to the accused must
be eschewed. No doubt, it is recognised,
that   where   there   is   a   perfunctory
examination   under   Section   313   CrPC,
the   matter   is   capable   of   being   remitted
to   the   trial   court,   with   the   direction   to
retry   from   the   stage   at   which   the
prosecution   was   closed   [ Shivaji
Sahabrao   Bobade   v.   State   of
Maharashtra ,   (1973)   2   SCC   793   :   1973
SCC (Cri) 1033].”
                          (emphasis added)
15. Learned   counsel   for   the   respondent   also
relied   upon   a   decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of
Vahitha   v.   State of Tamil Nadu 9
.  This case does
not   deal   with   the   consequences   of   the   omission
made  while questioning   the accused under  Section
313   of   CrPC.     This   deals   only   with   a   contingency
where   evidence   of   the   prosecution   witnesses   goes
unchallenged.   Now we come to the decision of this
Court   in   the   case   of   Satyavir   Singh 5
  relied   upon
by   the   learned   counsel   for   the   respondent.     The
9   2023 SCC OnLine SC 174.  
Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256  of 2018
Page  21  of  33

decision   holds   that   the   challenge   to   the   conviction
based on non­compliance with Section 313 of CrPC
for   the   first   time   in   the   appeal   cannot   be
entertained   unless   the   accused   demonstrates   that
prejudice   has   been   caused   to   him.     If   an   objection
is raised at the earliest, the defect can be cured by
recording an additional statement of the concerned
accused.   The   sum   and   substance   of   the   said
decision is that such a long delay can be a factor in
deciding   whether   the   trial   is   vitiated.   Moreover,
what   is  binding  is  the  decision  of  the  larger  Bench
in   the   case   of   Shivaji   Sahabrao   Bobade 7,
  which
lays   down   that   if   there   is   prejudice   caused   to   the
accused   resulting   in  failure  of   justice,   the   trial   will
vitiate.
16. The law consistently laid down by  this Court
can be summarized as under:
(i) It   is   the   duty   of   the   Trial   Court   to   put
each   material   circumstance   appearing
Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256  of 2018
Page  22  of  33

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;
(ii) 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;
(iii) The   Court   must   ordinarily   eschew
material   circumstances   not   put   to   the
accused   from   consideration   while
dealing   with   the   case   of   the   particular
accused;
(iv) The   failure   to   put   material
circumstances   to   the   accused   amounts
to   a   serious   irregularity.     It   will   vitiate
Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256  of 2018
Page  23  of  33

the trial if it is shown to have prejudiced
the accused;
(v) 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;
(vi) In   case   such   irregularity   is   curable,
even   the   appellate   court   can   question
the   accused   on   the   material
circumstance   which   is   not   put   to   him;
and
(vii) In   a   given   case,   the   case   can   be
remanded   to   the   Trial   Court   from   the
stage   of   recording   the   supplementary
statement   of   the   concerned   accused
Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256  of 2018
Page  24  of  33

under Section 313 of CrPC.
(viii) 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.
17. Now,   we   will   have   to   apply   the   principles
enunciated   by   this   Court   to   the   facts   of   this   case.
The   High   Court   has   reproduced   the   charge   framed
on 04 th
 July 1998 against the accused, which reads
thus :
“Charge
6.   The   charge   framed   against   all   the
accused   by   the   order   dated   4 th
  July
1998 by the trial Court was as under :
(i) That on or before 1 st
  October 1995
at  around 3.30 pm at  Delhi  A­1 to
A­6   along   with   Vimal   (since   dead)
agreed to criminally intimidate and
commit the murder of Jawahar Lal
(PW­3) and his relatives on account
of   the   failure   of   PW­3   to   stop   his
TV   cable   network   in   the   area   of
Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256  of 2018
Page  25  of  33

Paschimpuri   thereby   committing
the   offence   of   criminal   conspiracy
punishable   under   Section   120B
IPC.
(ii) That   at   House   No.618/3,
Paschimpuri   on   1 st
  October   1995,
in   pursuance   of   the
aforementioned   conspiracy,   A­4
and   A­5   fired   bullets   from   their
respective   revolvers   on   Smt.   Omi
Devi   and   Chander   Shekhar
whereas   Vimal   and   A­3   attacked
Chander   Shekhar   and   Omi   with
their   respective   dagger   and   knife
and   committed   their   murders   and
thus all of them had committed an
offence   punishable   under   Section
302 read with 120B IPC.
(iii) All   of   them   pursuant   to   the
criminal   conspiracy   attempted
to   commit   the   murder   of   PW­3
by   firing   bullets   from   their
revolvers on both PW­3 and PW­7
due to which both of them received
dangerous   injuries   and   thereby   all
of   them   committed   an   offence
punishable under Section 307 read
with 120B IPC.’
                     (emphasis added)
Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256  of 2018
Page  26  of  33

18. In  paragraph  7  of  the  High  Court  Judgment,
it is noted that a separate charge under Section 452
read   with   120­B   of   IPC   was   framed   against   all
accused   except   the   present   appellant.     Thus,   the
charge as framed against the appellant was of being
a   party   to   criminal   conspiracy.     There   is   also   a
charge   that   all   the   accused  fired   bullets   from   their
revolver.     Only   based   on   the   version   of   PW­5
regarding   the   appellant’s   presence   with   a   weapon
outside   the   premises   where   the   offence   took   place,
the   involvement   of   the   appellant   has   been   held   as
proved.   There   is   absolutely   no   other   evidence
against   him.   This   is   not   a   case   where   there   are
several   incriminating   circumstances   appearing
against   the   appellant   in   the   evidence   adduced   by
the prosecution.   This is a case where there is only
a   solitary   circumstance   appearing   in   the   evidence
against   the   appellant.     The   prosecution   examined
Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256  of 2018
Page  27  of  33

37 witnesses.  The material against the appellant is
in the form of one sentence in the evidence of PW­5.
As mentioned earlier, if we read 42 questions put to
the appellant in his statement under Section 313 of
CrPC, any accused having ordinary intelligence will
carry   an   impression   that   there   is   absolutely   no
material   against   him.     The   appellant   was   not
confronted   during   his   examination   under   section
313   of   CrPC   with   the   only   allegation   of   the
prosecution against him.   This is how, on facts, we
find   that   a   serious   prejudice   was   caused   to   the
appellant.  
19. The   incident   is   of   1995.     It   is   not   clear
whether   this   aspect   was   argued   before   the   Trial
Court   as   the   Trial   Court   has   not   reproduced   the
submissions   of   the   counsel   for   the   appellant.
However,   before   the   High   Court,   it   was   certainly
canvassed   as   it   forms   a   part   of   the   written
submissions. 
Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256  of 2018
Page  28  of  33

20. Even assuming that the defect or irregularity
was   curable,   the   question   is   whether   today,   the
appellant­accused can be called upon to explain the
said   circumstance.     More   than   27   years   have
passed since the date of the incident.   Considering
the   passage   of   time,   we   are   of   the   view   that   it   will
be unjust now at this stage to remit the case to the
Trial   Court   for   recording   further   statement   of   the
appellant   under   Section   313   of   CrPC.     In   the   facts
of the case, the appellant cannot be called upon to
answer   something   which   has   transpired   27   years
back.  There is one more aspect of the matter which
persuaded us not to pass an order of remand.   The
said   factor   is   that   the   appellant   has   already
undergone   incarceration   for   a   period   of   10   years
and 4 months. 
21. Before   we   part   with   this   judgment,   we   must
take a note of sub­section (5) added to Section 313
Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256  of 2018
Page  29  of  33

of CrPC w.e.f. 31 st
  December 2009.   Sub­section (5)
reads thus :
“ 313. Power to examine the accused. ­
(1) … … …
(2) … … … …
(3) … … … …
(4) … … … …
(5)   The   Court   may   take   help   of
Prosecutor   and   Defence   Counsel   in
preparing   relevant   questions   which   are
to   be   put   to   the   accused   and   the   Court
may   permit   filing   of   written   statement
by  the  accused  as sufficient  compliance
of this section.”
In   many   criminal   trials,   a   large   number   of
witnesses   are   examined,   and   evidence   is
voluminous.     It   is   true   that   the   Judicial   Officers
have to understand the importance of Section 313.
But now the Court is empowered to take the help of
the   prosecutor   and   the   defence   counsel   in
preparing   relevant   questions.     Therefore,   when   the
Trial   Judge   prepares   questions   to   be   put   to   the
accused   under   Section   313,   before   putting   the
questions   to   the   accused,   the   Judge   can   always
Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256  of 2018
Page  30  of  33

provide   copies   of   the   said   questions   to   the   learned
Public   Prosecutor   as   well   as   the   learned   defence
Counsel and seek their assistance for ensuring that
every   relevant   material   circumstance   appearing
against the accused is put to him.  When the Judge
seeks   the   assistance   of   the   prosecutor   and   the
defence lawyer, the lawyers must act as the officers
of   the   Court   and   not   as   mouthpieces   of   their
respective   clients.     While   recording   the   statement
under   Section   313   of   CrPC   in   cases   involving   a
large number of prosecution witnesses, the Judicial
Officers  will  be   well   advised   to   take   benefit   of   sub­
section   (5)   of   Section   313   of   CrPC,   which   will
ensure   that   the   chances   of   committing   errors   and
omissions are minimized.
22. In   1951,   while   delivering   the   verdict   in   the
case   of   Tara   Singh 6
,   this   Court   lamented   that   in
many cases, scant attention is paid to the salutary
provision   of   Section   342   of   CrPC   of   1898.     We   are
Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256  of 2018
Page  31  of  33

sorry to note that the situation continues to be the
same after 72 years as we see such defaults in large
number   of   cases.   The   National   and   the   State
Judicial   Academies   must   take   a   note   of   this
situation.   The Registry shall forward a copy of this
decision   to   the   National   and   all   the   State   Judicial
Academies.
23. In the circumstances, we are of the view that
the   conviction   of   the   appellant   stands   vitiated.     In
the   facts   of   the   case,   the   option   of   remand   will   be
unjust.     Accordingly,   we   allow   the   appeal   and   set
aside   the   conviction   and   sentence   of   the   appellant
under   the   Judgment   and   Order   dated   27 th
  August
2003   passed   by   the   learned   Additional   Sessions
Judge,   Delhi,   in   Sessions   Case   No.9   of   2000.
Consequently,   the   impugned   judgment   of   the   High
Court is also set aside.   We make it clear that both
judgments   are   set   aside   only   insofar   as   the
appellant is concerned.  We, accordingly, direct that
Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256  of 2018
Page  32  of  33

the   respondent   shall   forthwith   set   the   appellant   at
liberty   unless   he   is   required   to   be   detained   in
connection with any other case. 
……………………………J.
[ABHAY S. OKA]
……………………………J.
[RAJESH BINDAL] 
New Delhi
May 11, 2023.
Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.11256  of 2018
Page  33  of  33