Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction for Non-Compliance of Section 313 CrPC; Orders Fresh 313 Examination and Limited Remand

Case Name: Chandan Pasi & Others v. State of Bihar
Citation: 2025 INSC 1371
Date of Judgment/Order: 01 December 2025
Bench: Sanjay Karol, J.; Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J.

Held: The Supreme Court held that the trial suffered from a fatal procedural irregularity due to complete non-compliance with Section 313 CrPC. The questioning administered by the Trial Court consisted of generic, repetitive, and incomplete questions that failed to put each material incriminating circumstance to the accused. Such “carbon-copy” statements of all three appellants indicated the absence of a meaningful dialogue between the court and the accused, which is the core purpose of Section 313. The Court further held that failure of the prosecution and the Trial Court to comply with this mandatory requirement violated natural justice and vitiated the entire conviction, warranting a remand limited to fresh 313 examination.

Summary: The appellants were among six persons convicted by the Trial Court in 2017 for murder (Section 302/34 IPC) and house-trespass and assault (Sections 448 and 323 IPC). The High Court affirmed the conviction in 2024. Before the Supreme Court, the main argument raised was that the statements recorded under Section 313 CrPC did not put the actual incriminating evidence or material circumstances to the accused. The Court examined the 313 statements and found that all three were nearly identical, with only four superficial questions asked, two of which were extremely general and referred merely to “allegations” rather than evidence. The Court held that such questioning failed to meet the mandatory standards laid down in Sanatan Naskar, Indrakunwar, Raj Kumar, and Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh, which require that each material circumstance relied upon by the prosecution be distinctly put to the accused. The Court also expressed concern that the prosecutor had abdicated the duty to assist the court in ensuring proper 313 compliance. Given that Section 313 violations strike at the foundation of a fair trial, the Court found that the entire conviction was unsafe and must be set aside, without considering other grounds of appeal.

Decision: Allowing the appeals, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction and remanded the matter to the Trial Court solely for the purpose of fresh examination of the three appellants under Section 313 CrPC. The remand was expressly limited to these appellants and does not affect the conviction of other co-accused whose cases were not before the Court. Recognising that the incident occurred in 2016, the Court directed the Trial Court to complete the remanded proceedings within four months of receipt of the judgment. All pending applications were disposed of.