Kanishak Jaiswal
In a recent judgment by the Supreme Court of India, the issue at hand was whether the failure to inform the accused individuals about incriminating circumstances while recording their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CRPC), would invalidate their conviction when relying on Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
The Supreme Court, consisting of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Manoj Misra, held that the absence of presenting incriminating circumstances to the accused during the trial does not automatically render the trial invalid unless it can be demonstrated that the accused were prejudiced by this omission. The Court further explained that if the accused delay in raising this plea, or if they raise it for the first time in the Supreme Court, it can be assumed that they did not suffer any prejudice as a result of this omission.
These findings were made in the context of three appeals filed against the judgment of the High Court of Delhi, which had upheld the convictions and sentences of Sunil, Shri Krishan, and Ravinder under Sections 302/307/34 of the IPC.
The Court examined the questions posed to the accused appellants under Section 313 CRPC to elicit their responses regarding the incriminating evidence against them. The Court also referred to various judgments, including the case of Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 2 SCC 648, to discuss the legal aspects related to examining accused individuals under Section 313 CRPC.
Importantly, the appellants in this case were represented by their legal counsel throughout the trial and had the opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. However, they did not raise any objections regarding the failure to present incriminating circumstances either during the trial court proceedings or in the High Court. Therefore, the Court concluded that it could be assumed that the appellants did not suffer any prejudice due to this omission, and their convictions were not invalidated by the alleged non-compliance with Section 313 CRPC.
SUNIL … Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
