Case Note & Summary
The applicants, originally accused Nos. 1 to 4, were tried by the Court of JMFC, Cantonment Court, Pune for offences punishable under Sections 392, 394 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The trial court examined 24 prosecution witnesses and one defence witness and acquitted all the accused by judgment dated 18 February 2017. The State of Maharashtra appealed against the acquittal in Criminal Appeal No. 556 of 2017 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. The appeal was initially heard by District Judge Shri R.N. Sardesai, who reserved judgment on 19 July 2018 but could not pronounce it due to change of designation. The file was then transferred to the court of District Judge Shri A.S. Bhaisare, who pronounced judgment on 4 September 2018, converting the acquittal into conviction. The appellate court convicted all applicants under Sections 392, 394 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 1,000 each, with default simple imprisonment for three months. The applicants challenged this conviction by way of criminal revision before the High Court. The main legal issue was whether the appellate court's failure to comply with Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) by not putting the incriminating evidence to the accused vitiated the conviction. The applicants argued that the appellate court did not examine them under Section 313 CrPC on the evidence it relied upon, which caused prejudice. The State opposed the revision, contending that the appellate court had considered the evidence properly. The High Court analyzed the appellate court's judgment and found that it had not complied with Section 313 CrPC. The court noted that the appellate court had relied on the evidence of certain witnesses and the recovery of articles, but had not put these incriminating circumstances to the accused for their explanation. The High Court held that this non-compliance was a serious procedural irregularity that vitiated the conviction. The court set aside the conviction and sentence and remanded the matter to the appellate court for fresh consideration after complying with Section 313 CrPC. The court directed the appellate court to examine the accused under Section 313 CrPC on the incriminating evidence and then pass a fresh judgment.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 313 CrPC - Fair Trial - Duty of Court - The appellate court converted acquittal into conviction without examining the accused under Section 313 CrPC on the incriminating evidence relied upon. The High Court held that such non-compliance vitiates the conviction as it deprives the accused of an opportunity to explain the circumstances appearing against them. The conviction was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration after compliance with Section 313 CrPC. (Paras 7-12) B) Criminal Law - Robbery - Sections 392, 394, 34 IPC - Acquittal - The trial court had acquitted the accused due to lack of credible evidence. The appellate court reversed the acquittal without giving the accused a chance to explain the evidence. The High Court found that the appellate court's judgment was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and fair trial. (Paras 2-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the failure of the appellate court to comply with Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by not putting incriminating evidence to the accused vitiates the conviction?
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the criminal revision application, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the appellate court, and remanded the matter to the appellate court for fresh consideration after complying with Section 313 CrPC. The appellate court was directed to examine the accused under Section 313 CrPC on the incriminating evidence and then pass a fresh judgment.
Law Points
- Section 313 CrPC
- fair trial
- prejudice
- incriminating evidence
- duty of court
- acquittal
- robbery
- Indian Penal Code
- 1860
- Sections 392
- 394
- 34 IPC
