‘Tired Judge No Excuse’: Supreme Court Stresses Duty To Put All Evidence To Accused Under Section 313 CrPC
The Supreme Court says that incomplete questioning of the accused under Section 313 CrPC can lead to serious injustice.
The Supreme Court has said that Sessions Judges, who handle serious criminal trials, must take great care to put every incriminating circumstance before the accused. Court noted that even if a judge feels tired after a long trial, this responsibility cannot be compromised.
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran stressed that the public prosecutor also has a key role in this process. It is their duty to assist the trial court while recording the accused’s statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [corresponding to Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)].
The Bench explained that if the court fails to put any important evidence to the accused, the public prosecutor must immediately point it out. The prosecutor should help frame proper questions and ensure the trial is conducted fairly. While the prosecutor must see that guilty persons are punished, they must also ensure that no procedural lapses cause unfairness to the accused.
In the present case, which arose from an appeal filed by one Sanjay Kumar and another, the Court found that the accused were not properly questioned about the evidence against them. Only three brief questions were asked, and these did not cover all the incriminating material on record.
Because of this, Court held that the trial court’s judgment could not stand. It observed that such a limited and vague examination of the accused falls far below the legal standard required.
The Supreme Court also pointed out that the Patna High Court had erred in upholding the conviction without addressing this serious flaw.
Referring to earlier decisions in Ashok vs State of Uttar Pradesh (2025) and Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade vs State of Maharashtra (1973), the Bench reiterated that proper questioning of the accused is a crucial safeguard in criminal trials.
Court concluded that the failure to put all relevant evidence to the accused caused serious injustice. It therefore set aside both the high court’s judgment dated March 6, 2025, and the earlier conviction and sentence orders passed by the trial court in 2016.
Instead of deciding the case on merits, the Supreme Court sent the matter back to the trial court. It restored the sessions trial to allow a fresh and proper examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code, strictly in line with legal requirements.
Court directed that the appellants be released on bail, subject to conditions fixed by the trial court, until this exercise is completed.
Also Read| Why Properly Questioning the Accused Is Crucial in Criminal Trials: Supreme Court Explains
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar & Anr Vs State of Bihar & Ors
Bench: Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran
Date of Judgment: February 12, 2026