Marilingappa vs The State through C.P.L. Shahapur. Criminal Appeal 200045/2014. Decided on 15 September 2020. Bench Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Krishna P Bhat. Judgment delivered by-Justice Krishna P Bhat
Judgement Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/339849/1/CRLA200045-14-15-09-2020.pdf
Relevant Paragraphs: 16. It is well settled that incriminating material available in the deposition of prosecution witnesses can be utilized against the accused to his detriment only if the same is brought to the attention of the accused and an opportunity is given to him to explain the same. Any violation of the above, results in serious prejudice to the accused/appellant.
18. Observing the above mandate of the law in a criminal trial is not an empty formality. An onerous responsibility is cast on the Trial Judge to put each incriminating aspect of the case available in the evidence pointedly to the accused and record his reply to the same faithfully in a question and answer manner. The duty cast under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is a solemn one. Any laxity in recording the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. will have serious consequences on the life and liberty of the person facing prosecution and more so when he is facing serious charges like the one under Section 302 of IPC.
19. This Court had an opportunity to elaborately explain the importance and mandatory nature of the duty of recording statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and the manner in which the Trial Judge has to discharge the same. The case in point is the one reported in ILR 1991 KAR 1542 (State vs. Dasharath). (paras 5 to 12 extracted).
20. The above interpretation of the mode of recording the statement and the role of the trial judge in the same has been approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in various decisions and also reiterated by this Court. In view of the above violation of the precious right of the accused to know the incriminating circumstances available on record and also denial of an opportunity to offer his explanation to the same which has serious implication on his life and liberty in this case, it is necessary to set aside the impugned judgment and remand the case to the learned Sessions Judge for formulating proper questions for putting the same while examining the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. keeping in view the observations of this Court as extracted above in Dasharath’s case and thereafter hear and pronounce the judgment in accordance with law. This view of ours receives support from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in (2015) 1 SCC 496 (Nar Singh vs. State oƒ Haryana – (Paragraph Nos.27, 28 & 29 extracted)
ORDER: Accordingly, the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Court at Yadgiri in S.C.No.35/2011 dated 06.01.2012 is set aside and the matter is remanded to it to proceed with the case from the stage of recording the statement of appellant keeping in view the observations of this Court in Dasharath’s case and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Nar Singh’s case and thereafter shall dispose of the case in accordance with law. Since the case is of the year 2011, learned Sessions Judge shall conclude the entire exercise within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. The accused-appellant shall remain in judicial custody.
Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal.
Daksha Legal 