Convictions Set Aside Where Police Withheld First Report and Accused Were Poorly Examined Under S.313; Court Acquits Two After 35 Years

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard an appeal by two accused challenging their convictions for murder and life sentences, arising from an incident in May 1990. The appeal contested the High Court’s February 10, 2023 judgment that had affirmed the trial court’s sentence but modified the conviction to Section 302/34 IPC; the appellants had surrendered in May 2023 and remained in custody when the matter reached the Supreme Court.

The Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellants, holding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt because of (i) defective and perfunctory examination of the accused under Section 313 CrPC (Section 351 BNSS), and (ii) deliberate non-production of a crucial investigating officer who recorded the initial report. The Court found that the prosecution had superseded an earlier fardbeyan by substituting a later, embellished report that named the accused. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The purpose of recording the statement of an accused under Section 313 CrPC (Section 351 BNSS) is to make the accused aware of the circumstances as appearing against him in the prosecution case and to seek his explanation for the same. For this purpose, the accused must be informed of each and every incriminating circumstance which the prosecution intends to rely upon for bringing home the guilt of the accused. Omission to put material circumstances to the accused in the statement under Section 313 CrPC (Section 351 BNSS) would cause grave prejudice and may, in a given case, even prove fatal to the case of the prosecution. Of course, the appellate Court can rectify this error by requiring that a fresh statement under Section 313 CrPC (Section 351 BNSS) be recorded for removing the lacunae, if any, in this procedure. In the present case, on going through the statements of both the accused persons recorded by the trial Court under Section 313 CrPC (Section 351 BNSS) (supra), we find that these statements are almost a reproduction of the language of the charge and, in no manner, convey to the accused persons the incriminating circumstances/evidence produced by the prosecution so as to indict them for the crime. This defect goes to the root of the matter.” The Court also noted that “there is no escape from the conclusion that the withholding of the witness was a deliberate attempt by the prosecution to cover up the crucial flaw in its case.”

Background The prosecution story was that the deceased, Gajendra Prasad Gupta, was assaulted on 11 May 1990 after selling sweets at a fair and died of head injuries on 12 May 1990. The informant lodged a fardbeyan on 12 May (Exh.1) recorded at R.M.C.H., Ranchi, and a formal written report on 13 May (Exh.5) that named the appellants; the two documents differed in material respects. Charges were framed and the trial court convicted the accused under Sections 120B, 302 and 302/149 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment on 30 August 1994. The High Court later dismissed the appeal but modified the conviction to Section 302/34 IPC with a fine.

Before the Supreme Court, defence counsel argued that (i) the initial fardbeyan (Exh.1) was the real first information report and was suppressed by the prosecution in favour of the later embellished report (Exh.5), (ii) the investigating officer ASI R. Paswan, who recorded Exh.1 and Exh.5, was not examined, (iii) the accused were put only three generic questions under Section 313, causing prejudice, and (iv) defence eyewitnesses called by accused contradicted the prosecution version. The State relied on concurrent findings of fact by the courts below.

The Supreme Court re-examined evidence in view of the 35-year delay and observed that the Section 313 record was "highly laconic and defective," amounting to a defect that went to the root of the trial. The Court held that non-examination of ASI R. Paswan — the scribe of Exh.1 and the investigator — attracted adverse inference and undermined prosecution credibility. The Court followed and applied principles from earlier precedents on Section 313 compliance and on adverse inference where material witnesses were withheld. The Court found that the informant’s statements were inconsistent, that the purported oral dying declaration was implausible given the grievous head injuries and absence of contemporaneous hospital records, and that defence eyewitnesses who denied seeing the appellants were not satisfactorily dealt with by the courts below. Concluding that “the prosecution has miserably failed to fasten the guilt upon the accused-appellants,” the Court set aside the High Court and trial court judgments, acquitted the appellants and directed their release forthwith if not wanted in any other case. The appeal was allowed.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1382; Criminal Appeal No. 305 of 2024 Case Title: Suresh Sahu & Another v. The State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the judgment