Remanded

Ses Ram v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC9 Dec 2024CR.A/240/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal against conviction. The High Court held that material circumstances were not put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. While acknowledging the Supreme Court's view that a delay affects curability, the Court found no prejudice caused. It set aside the conviction and remanded the matter for recording a supplementary statement.

What did the court decide?

Conviction set aside; matter remanded to Trial Court to record supplementary statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; accused to be produced on 23.12.2024.

Ses Ram Vs State of Hp — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

Ses Ram vs State of H.P.

¶2

Cr. Appeal No. 240 of 2020 Reserved on 11.11.2024

¶3

09.12.2024 Present: Mr Ram Murti Bisht, Advocate, for the appellant.

¶4

Mr. Sanjay Dutt Vasudeva, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/ State.

¶5

It was submitted on behalf of learned counsel for the appellant/accused that the material circumstances viz. asking for a phone number, disclosure statement, the accused preventing the other persons from searching Ghasni, presence of blood stains on the wall, calls made by the accused and telephone number ascertained by the accused were considered by the learned Trial Court against the accused but these were not put to him while recording his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. to ascertain his version. These circumstances are to be excluded as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maheshwar Tigga vs The State of Jharkhand 2020 (10) SCC 108 . Once they are excluded, the chain of the circumstantial evidence is broken and the accused cannot be connected with the commission of the crime. 2. Mr. S.D. Vasudeva, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State submitted that the

¶6

Court has the power to put the question itself or to ask the learned Trial Court to put the question to the accused to ascertain the version of the accused. The accused should not be allowed to go scot-free due to the omission to put the circumstances to him.

¶7

It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 609 that the Trial Court has to put the material circumstances appearing against the accused specifically and if the circumstances are not put to the accused, they cannot be considered against him. The irregularity in putting the circumstances can be cured by the Appellate Court by putting the question to the accused or remanding the matter to the learned Trial Court for recording the supplementary statement of the accused. It was observed:-

¶8

17. The law consistently laid down by this Court can be summarized as under:

¶9

(i) It is the duty of the Trial Court to put each material circumstance appearing in the evidence against the accused specifically, distinctively and separately. The material circumstance means the circumstance or the material on the basis of which the prosecution is seeking his conviction;

¶10

(ii) The object of examination of the accused under Section 313 is to enable the accused to explain any circumstance appearing against him in the evidence;

¶11

(iii) The Court must ordinarily eschew material circumstances not put to the accused from consideration while dealing with the case of the particular accused;

¶12

(iv) The failure to put material circumstances to the accused amounts to a serious irregularity. It will vitiate the trial if it is shown to have prejudiced the accused;

¶13

(v) If any irregularity in putting the material circumstance to the accused does not result in failure of justice, it becomes a curable defect. However, while deciding whether the defect can be cured, one of the considerations will be the passage of time from the date of the incident; (vi) In case such irregularity is curable, even the appellate court can question the accused on the material circumstance which is not put to him; and

¶14

(vii) In a given case, the case can be remanded to the Trial Court from the stage of recording the supplementary statement of the concerned accused under Section 313 of CrPC.

¶15

(viii) While deciding the question whether prejudice has been caused to the accused because of the omission, the delay in raising the contention is only one of the several factors to be considered.

¶16

In the present case, the incident took place

¶17

in the year 2016, the learned Trial Court recorded the conviction in the year 2019, and considerable time has not lapsed since the date of the incident. Since the act of the Court will not prejudice any person including the prosecution, therefore, we deem it fit and proper that the matter be remitted back to the learned Trial Court to record the supplementary statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. to ascertain his version.

¶18

Hence, the judgment dated 03.05.2019 and order of conviction dated 07.05.2019 are ordered to be set aside and the present matter is remanded to the learned Trial Court to record the supplementary statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and to decide the matter afresh as per law. The accused was in judicial custody during the trial. He be produced before the learned Trial Court on 23.12.2024. Necessary directions be issued to the Superintendent Jail. The record be transmitted to the learned Trial Court to reach the Court well before the date fixed.

¶19

(Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge

¶20

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

¶21

December 09, 2024 (ravinder)

Ses Ram v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ses Ram v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandeep Chaudhary Vs Priyanka

Daulat Ram Vs the State of Hp and Others

The Hpsebl Vs Suman Lata Thakur

State of Hp and Others Vs Vinay Patyal

State of Hp Vs Mustaq

Sonu Chauhan Vs the State of Hp and Others