'Statements under S 313 CrPC recorded in most mechanical manner,' Supreme Court sets aside conviction

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka (since retired) and Ujjal Bhuyan pointed out only four questions generally were put to the appellants, which did not reflect the specific prosecution evidence which came on record qua the appellants, Ramji Prasad Jaiswal alias Ramjee Prasad Jaiswal, and Ashok Kumar Jaiswal.

The court found the manner in which the trial court had recorded the statements of the appellants under Section 313 CrPC was not at all in tune with the requirements of the said provision.

"As all the incriminating evidence were not put to the notice of the appellants, therefore, there was a clear breach of Section 313 CrPC as well as the principle of audi alteram partem. Certainly, this caused serious prejudice to the appellants to put forth their case. Ultimately, such evidence were relied upon by the court to convict the appellants," the bench said.

Therefore, the court held, there is no doubt that such omission, which is a serious irregularity, has completely vitiated the trial.

"Even if we take a more sanguine approach by taking the view that such omission did not result in the failure of justice, it is still a material defect albeit curable," the bench said.

The bench, however, noted while deciding whether such defect can be cured or not, one of the considerations will be the passage of time from the date of the incident, as held in Raj Kumar alias Suman Vs State (NCT of Delhi) (2023).

The bench recorded the period during which the offence was allegedly committed was from September, 1982 to December, 1982 and the trial was concluded on May 29, 2006.

"Nineteen years have gone by since then. At this distant point of time, instead of aiding the cause of justice, it will lead to miscarriage of justice if the case qua the two appellants are remanded to the trial court to restart the trial from the stage of recording the statements of the accused persons under Section 313 CrPC," the bench said.

In such circumstances, the court opined that it is neither possible nor feasible to order such remand.

"Consequently, appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt because of such omission in the recording of their statements under Section 313 CrPC, since the trial court had relied on the evidence adverse to the appellants while convicting them," the court held.

The appellants along with others were tried by the court of Special Judge, Central Bureau of Investigation, South Bihar, Patna for allegedly committing offences under Sections 420, 440, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Section 5(2) and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. In 2006, they were held guilty and awarded a sentence of three years along with the fine. In 2011, the High Court dismissed their appeals.

According to the prosecution, the bank manager along with the accused including the appellants fraudulently and dishonestly obtained payment of Rs 71,456.00 and Rs 12,57,810.00 against certain bills which were accompanied by fake transport receipts issued by the appellants.

The court also set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence against one appellant as he was found to be juvenile at the time of the offence.

"Ordinarily once an accused person was found to be a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence, he was required to be dealt with by the Juvenile Justice Board for carrying out necessary inquiry in terms of Section 14 of the JJ Act and thereafter to pass order under Section 15 including an order directing the juvenile to be sent to a special home for a period of 3 years," the bench said.

In the instant case, the court, however, said, more than four decades have passed by since commission of the offence.

"In the circumstances, it is neither possible nor feasible to remand the case of appellant No. 3 to the concerned Juvenile Justice Board to carry out the exercise under Sections 14 and 15 of the JJ Act. Therefore, the judgment and order of the trial court as affirmed by the High Court are hereby set aside on the ground of juvenility," the bench said.

Case Title: Ramji Prasad Jaiswal @ Ramjee Prasad Jaiswal And Ors Vs State of Bihar