The Supreme Court of India has held that a Public Prosecutor is an officer of the Court with a solemn duty to act in the interest of justice and cannot merely act as a counsel for the State with the sole aim of securing a conviction. The Court further emphasized that a fair trial necessitates granting the accused a full opportunity to explain incriminating circumstances under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, in the case of Chandan Pasi & Ors. v. The State of Bihar (Criminal Appeal No(s). 5137-5138 of 2025), set aside the concurrent findings of conviction against three appellants in a murder case due to an “abject failure” in complying with Section 313 CrPC.
Case Background
The appeals arose from a judgment by the Patna High Court, which had affirmed the conviction and life sentence handed down by the District & Session Judge, Buxar, in Sessions Trial No. 256 of 2016.
The prosecution’s case was that on March 31, 2016, the informant Kachan Pasi, along with his father Ghughali Pasi and other family members, was intercepted by the accused persons while returning from the fields. It was alleged that the accused assaulted Ghughali Pasi with a katta (country-made pistol), leading to his death. The Trial Court convicted six persons for offences under Section 302/34 (murder with common intention), Section 448 (house-trespass), and Section 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Three of the convicts—Chandan Pasi, Pappu Pasi, and Gidik Pasi—approached the Supreme Court.
Legal Issue and Arguments
The central issue before the Supreme Court was the validity of the recording of statements under Section 313 CrPC. Ms. Anjana Prakash, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, argued that there was significant non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of the section, prejudicing the accused.
The Court noted that the examination of the accused under Section 313 CrPC is a “non-negotiable requirement of a fair trial,” providing the accused an opportunity to explain circumstances appearing in the evidence against them.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
The Supreme Court examined the statements recorded by the Trial Court and termed the proceedings a “sorry state of affairs.”
On the Role of the Prosecutor: The Bench delivered a stinging rebuke regarding the manner in which the prosecutor conducted the proceedings. Justice Karol, writing for the Bench, observed:
“It is equally disturbing for us to see that in the desire to secure a conviction for the accused persons, the prosecutor also let their duty of assisting the Court in conducting the examination of the accused under this section fall by the wayside. The prosecutor is an officer of the Court and holds a solemn duty to act in the interest of justice. They cannot act as a defence lawyer, but for the State, with the sole aim of making the gauntlet of punishment fall on the accused.”
On Compliance with Section 313 CrPC: The Court found that the statements of all three appellants were “carbon copies of each other.” The questions put to the accused were described as general and vague, failing to put specific material circumstances to them.
“How such statements can pass muster at the hands of the learned Trial Judge is something which we fail to understand… The ultimate test when concerned with the compliance of the Section is to enquire and ensure whether the accused got the opportunity to say his piece.”
Citing precedents including Sanatan Naskar v. State of W.B. (2010) and Indrakunwar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2023), the Court reiterated that Section 313 is not a mere formality but a mandatory obligation designed to establish a direct dialogue between the Court and the accused.
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals on the sole ground of non-compliance with Section 313 CrPC.
- Remand: The matter was remanded to the Trial Court to recommence proceedings from the stage of recording Section 313 statements.
- Specific Direction: The Court clarified that this order applies only to the three appellants and does not disturb the findings regarding other accused persons not before the Court.
- Timeline: Recognizing that the offence occurred in 2016, the Court directed the Trial Court to complete the needful within four months from the date of communication of the judgment.
The Registrar (Judicial) was directed to communicate the order to the Patna High Court for immediate compliance.
