Failure to Put DNA & Rape Evidence Under Section 313 CrPC Vitiates Trial: P&H High Court Sets Aside Death Sentence, Orders Retrial
Case Name: State of Punjab v. Vinod Shah & Anr.
Date of Judgment: 06 April 2026
Citation: MRC-3-2023; CRA-D-716-2023; CRA-D-659-2023
Bench: Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that failure to put crucial incriminating evidence including DNA reports and medical evidence of rape to the accused under Section 313 CrPC (now Section 351 BNSS) vitiates the trial if it causes prejudice. Such defects strike at the root of a fair trial and necessitate setting aside the conviction and remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
Summary: This case arose out of a gruesome incident involving the abduction, rape, and murder of a 7½-year-old child. As noted from the record, the trial court had convicted the accused under Sections 302, 363, 366 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, awarding death sentences subject to confirmation.
The prosecution case was based on eyewitness accounts, medical evidence establishing sexual assault and homicidal death, recovery of incriminating articles, and DNA evidence linking the accused to the crime. The factual narrative, including recovery of the dead body and medical findings, strongly indicated rape followed by murder.
However, during appellate scrutiny, the High Court identified serious procedural lapses in the conduct of trial particularly in recording statements of the accused under Section 313 CrPC. The Court noted that several critical incriminating circumstances were either not put to the accused or were improperly framed.
Most notably, the Court found that the evidence of rape, as established through medical examination (PW8), was not specifically put to the accused. Similarly, the DNA report linking blood stains on recovered clothes to the victim which formed a crucial basis for conviction was never put to the accused for explanation.
The Court emphasized that Section 313 CrPC is not a mere formality but a substantive safeguard rooted in principles of natural justice. The accused must be given a fair opportunity to explain each material circumstance appearing against them. Failure to do so renders reliance on such evidence legally impermissible.
Additionally, the Court observed defects such as omnibus questioning, incorrect framing of questions, and failure to highlight key incriminating material. These lapses were held to be capable of causing serious prejudice to the accused.
While acknowledging that such defects are curable irregularities, the Court held that in the present case, the omissions were too fundamental to sustain the conviction, especially in a death penalty matter.
Decision: The High Court set aside the conviction and death sentence awarded by the trial court and remanded the matter for fresh proceedings from the stage of recording statements under Section 313 CrPC (now Section 351 BNSS). The trial court was directed to properly put all incriminating evidence to the accused and proceed in accordance with law.