Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Roshan Lilhare, was convicted by the Sessions Court, Nagpur for the murder of his brother Munesh Lilhare under Section 302 IPC and for causing disappearance of evidence under Section 201 IPC, sentenced to life imprisonment and two years respectively. The case was based on circumstantial evidence. The appellant challenged the conviction on the ground that the Chemical Analyzer's Report, which was a crucial piece of evidence, was not specifically put to him during his examination under Section 313 CrPC, thereby causing prejudice. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found that the prosecution had failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 313 CrPC. The court held that the omission to put the Chemical Analyzer's Report to the appellant vitiated the trial as it denied him a fair opportunity to explain the incriminating circumstance. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Examination of Accused - Section 313 CrPC - Fair Trial - The court held that failure to put the Chemical Analyzer's Report to the accused during Section 313 examination vitiates the trial as it deprives the accused of an opportunity to explain an incriminating circumstance. (Paras 3-4)
B) Evidence - Circumstantial Evidence - Chemical Analyzer Report - The court noted that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, each circumstance must be put to the accused; omission to do so renders the conviction unsustainable. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained when the Chemical Analyzer's Report was not specifically put to the accused during examination under Section 313 CrPC, causing prejudice.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 28.06.2018 passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.393/2015 is quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all charges. His bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence
- Section 313 CrPC
- Chemical Analyzer Report
- Fair trial
- Prejudice
Case Details
2020 LawText (BOM) (01) 155
Criminal Appeal No. 158/2019
Sunil B. Shukre, Madhav J. Jamdar
Shri S. H. Sudame (for appellant), Mrs S. V. Kolhe (for respondent)
Roshan S/o Channulal Lilhare
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for murder and causing disappearance of evidence.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought quashing of conviction and sentence, and acquittal.
Filing Reason
Appellant challenged the judgment and order dated 28.06.2018 passed by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.393/2015 convicting him under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.
Previous Decisions
The trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to life imprisonment for murder and two years for causing disappearance of evidence, with concurrent sentences.
Issues
Whether the conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained when the Chemical Analyzer's Report was not specifically put to the accused during examination under Section 313 CrPC.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the Chemical Analyzer's Report was not put to him during Section 313 examination, causing prejudice and vitiating the trial.
Respondent argued that the circumstances were generally pointed out, which is sufficient compliance with Section 313 CrPC.
Ratio Decidendi
In a case based on circumstantial evidence, each incriminating circumstance must be specifically put to the accused during examination under Section 313 CrPC. Failure to do so, especially regarding the Chemical Analyzer's Report, causes prejudice and renders the conviction unsustainable.
Judgment Excerpts
The appellant was convicted as per Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Pena Code for having committed murder of deceased Munesh Lilhare.
Shri. S. H. Sudame, learned counsel for the appellant argued that as all the circumstances which are held to be against appellant particularly contents of Chemical Analyzer’s Report are not put to the appellant during the examination conducted under Section 313 of the appellant, the appeal is required to be allowed.
Procedural History
The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Court on 28.06.2018. He filed the present appeal before the High Court on an unspecified date. The High Court heard the appeal and delivered judgment on 23.01.2020.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 302, 201
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 235(2), 313
