Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Death Sentence and Conviction for Procedural Lapses Under Section 313 CrPC; Orders De Novo Consideration of Evidence

Case Name: State of Haryana v. Vinod @ Munna

Date of Judgment: 19 January 2026

Citation: MRC-3-2021 and CRA-D-750-2021

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sukhvinder Kaur

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 313 CrPC (now Section 351 BNSS) by failing to put material incriminating evidence to the accused causes serious prejudice and vitiates the trial. The Court held that a conviction and sentence, including a death sentence, cannot be sustained where crucial prosecution evidence such as DNA reports, Section 164 CrPC statements, and medical findings are not put to the accused for explanation.

Summary: The matter arose out of a death reference under Section 366 CrPC seeking confirmation of the death sentence awarded to the accused Vinod @ Munna, along with a criminal appeal filed by the accused challenging his conviction and sentence. The accused had been convicted by the Sessions Court for offences under Sections 451, 365, 367, 377, 376-AB and 302 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and was sentenced to death for the offence under Section 302 IPC, besides multiple terms of rigorous imprisonment for other offences.

The prosecution case was that on the night of 20/21.12.2020, the accused abducted a five-year-old girl from her parents, took her to his residence, committed rape, and thereafter smothered her to death. The trial court relied upon ocular evidence, medical evidence, forensic material including DNA reports, and statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC to convict the accused and award the death penalty.

Upon examination of the record, the High Court noticed grave procedural lapses in the recording of the accused’s statement under Section 313 CrPC. The Court found that several crucial incriminating circumstances were not put to the accused, including the DNA report allegedly linking the accused to the offence, toxicology reports indicating intoxication, and the Section 164 CrPC statements of the victim’s parents. The Court observed that the questionnaire under Section 313 CrPC was cryptic, omnibus, and failed to individually confront the accused with material evidence relied upon by the prosecution.

The Court held that compliance with Section 313 CrPC is not a mere formality, especially in cases involving capital punishment. It emphasized that denial of an opportunity to explain incriminating material strikes at the root of a fair trial and causes irremediable prejudice to the accused.

In view of these serious procedural defects, the Court declined to confirm the death sentence and held that the conviction itself could not be sustained in its present form.

Decision: The death reference was answered in the negative. The conviction and sentences awarded to the accused were set aside. The matter was remitted to the trial court for fresh compliance with Section 313 CrPC and for de novo consideration thereafter, in accordance with law. The accused was directed to remain in custody. No opinion was expressed on the merits of the evidence.