Life in Jail, But Never Heard Properly: Supreme Court Scraps Murder Conviction

The Supreme Court has set aside the conviction and life sentences imposed on three men in a murder case after finding serious procedural lapses in the manner their statements were recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Holding that the accused were denied a fair opportunity to respond to the prosecution case, the Court remanded the matter back to the trial court to recommence proceedings from the stage of recording statements under Section 313 CrPC.

The ruling underscores the importance of Section 313 as a core safeguard in criminal trials and reiterates that mechanical or perfunctory compliance with the provision can vitiate the entire trial.

The appeals before the Supreme Court arose from a judgment of the Patna High Court delivered in September 2024, which had affirmed the 2017 decision of the trial court at Buxar. The trial court had convicted the appellants, Chandan Pasi and others, along with three co-accused, for the assault and murder of Ghughali Pasi using a katta on March 31, 2016, and sentenced them to life imprisonment.

Challenging the concurrent findings of guilt, the appellants raised multiple grounds before the Supreme Court. The principal contention, however, was that the trial court had failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 313 CrPC, thereby causing grave prejudice to the accused.

The Supreme Court examined the scope and object of Section 313 CrPC and reiterated settled law on the subject. The bench noted that Section 313 serves as a direct dialogue between the court and the accused, enabling the accused to personally explain every incriminating circumstance appearing in the evidence against them.

Referring to earlier judgments, the Court recalled that in Sanatan Naskar v State of West Bengal (2010), it was held that the primary purpose of Section 313 is to put each material incriminating piece of evidence to the accused and allow them to offer their explanation.

In Indrakunwar v State of Chhattisgarh (2023), the Court had emphasised that it is the obligation of the trial court to frame specific questions covering all incriminating circumstances so that the accused can meaningfully articulate their defence.

The Court further noted that in Raj Kumar v State (NCT of Delhi) (2023), later approved by a three judge bench in Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh v State of Uttar Pradesh (2025), it was held that failure to put material circumstances to the accused amounts to a serious irregularity and would vitiate the trial if prejudice is caused.

Applying these principles to the facts of the case, the Supreme Court found the manner in which the Section 313 statements were recorded to be deeply troubling. The bench noted that the statements of all three appellants were carbon copies of each other.

The Court expressed concern over how such identical statements could have been accepted by the trial court. It observed that out of four questions put to the accused, only two even remotely related to the sequence of events. The remaining questions were framed in an extremely general manner, merely referring to broad allegations, to which the accused gave omnibus denials.

The Court held that such questioning could not be described as putting every material circumstance to the accused, as required by law. The exercise failed to give the accused a real opportunity to explain the prosecution evidence in their own words.

The Supreme Court also commented on the role of the prosecutor in the trial. It noted with concern that the prosecutor, in the apparent pursuit of securing a conviction, failed to assist the court in properly conducting the examination of the accused under Section 313 CrPC.

Reiterating that a prosecutor is an officer of the court, the bench stressed that the prosecutor has a solemn duty to act in the interest of justice and ensure that procedural safeguards meant to protect the fairness of the trial are respected.

In view of the serious non compliance with Section 313 CrPC, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants. The Court held that it was not necessary to examine the other grounds raised against the conviction, given the fundamental procedural defect identified.

The matter was remanded to the concerned trial court with a direction to recommence proceedings from the stage of recording statements under Section 313 CrPC. The Supreme Court clarified that its observations would not affect the findings recorded against the other accused persons in the case.

Considering that the offence dated back to 2016, the Court directed the trial court to complete the exercise within four months.

Case Title: Chandan Pasi and Others v The State of Bihar

Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh

Date of Judgment: December 1, 2025