Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 1371
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No (s). 5137-5138 OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No (s). 3685-3686 of 2025)
CHANDAN PASI & ORS. ... APPELLANT (S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF THE BIHAR ... RESPONDENT (S)
J U D G M E N T
Leave granted.
2. The present appeals arise from the final judgments
th th
and orders dated 4 September, 2024 and 26 September, 2024
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal
Appeal (DB) No.443 of 2017, which affirmed the judgment of
th
conviction dated 27 March 2017 and the order of sentence
Signature Not Verified
th
dated 29 March 2017 passed by the Court of District
Digitally signed by
RAJNI MUKHI
Date: 2025.12.01
17:51:45 IST
Reason:
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s) 3685-86 of 2025 Page 1 of 11
1
& Session Judge, Buxar in Sessions Trial No.256 of 2016,
whereby a total of six persons were sentenced to life
imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- each under
2
Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 , one year simple
imprisonment each under Sections 448 & 323 along with
Section 34 IPC with all of them running concurrently. Before us
are three of the six convicts namely – Chandan Pasi, Pappu Pasi
and Gidik Pasi. Here only it may be noted that there was a
seventh accused person who was, by the process of law held to
be a juvenile and thus dealt with in accordance with the
applicable law.
3. By way of a factual background, it shall suffice to take
notice of the following:
st
3.1. On 31 March 2016, the informant Kachan Pasi along
with his father Ghughali Pasi, mother Kouta Devi and
sister-in-law Dharmsheela Devi were returning from the
fields of one Nanhaku Singh when the accused persons
surrounded the above-named and assaulted Ghughali
Pasi with a katta, who died as a result thereof. Particular
allegations of such assault were also levelled against
Joni Pasi @Ravindra Pasi.
3.2. The Trial Court convicted in the manner already referred
to supra . All the accused persons before the Trial Court
filed appeals under Section 374(2) of the Code of
1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’.
2 ‘IPC’ for short.
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s) 3685-86 of 2025 Page 2 of 11
3
Criminal Procedure 1973 , in which the High Court
upheld the findings of the Court below.
4. We have heard Ms. Anjana Prakash, learned Senior
Counsel for the appellants and learned Counsel appearing for
the State.
5. A perusal of the Special Leave Petition reveals that
amongst other grounds, the primary contention rests on the non-
compliance of Section 313, CrPC. This Court had indicated in
the order issuing notice that, should the ground of proper
compliance be made out, only then, we would proceed to
examine other grounds.
6. One of the non-negotiable requirements of a fair trial is
that the accused persons should have ample opportunity to
dispel the case and claims of the prosecution against them. This
ample opportunity can take many forms, whether it is adequate
representation through counsel or the opportunity to call
witnesses to present their side of the case or to have the
occasion to answer each and every allegation against them, on
their own, in their own words. The last one happens under
Section 313 CrPC.
7. This Court, in many judgments, delineated the scope and
object of Section 313 CrPC. The position is no longer up for
debate. Even so, we may refer to certain pronouncements for
the sake of completeness.
3 Hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s) 3685-86 of 2025 Page 3 of 11
4
7.1. In Sanatan Naskar v. State of W.B , this Court as
follows, regarding the scope of the examination under
Section 313 CrPC:
“ 21. The answers by an accused under Section 313
CrPC are of relevance for finding out the truth and
examining the veracity of the case of the prosecution.
The scope of Section 313 CrPC is wide and is not a
mere formality. ...
22. As already noticed, the object of recording the
statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC is to
put all incriminating evidence to the accused so as to
provide him an opportunity to explain such
incriminating circumstances appearing against him in
the evidence of the prosecution. At the same time, also
permit him to put forward his own version or reasons, if
he so chooses, in relation to his involvement or
otherwise in the crime. The court has been empowered
to examine the accused but only after the prosecution
evidence has been concluded. It is a mandatory
obligation upon the court and, besides ensuring the
compliance therewith, the court has to keep in mind
that the accused gets a fair chance to explain his
conduct. The option lies with the accused to maintain
silence coupled with simpliciter denial or, in the
alternative, to explain his version and reasons for his
alleged involvement in the commission of crime. This
is the statement which the accused makes without fear
or right of the other party to cross-examine him.
However, if the statements made are false, the court is
entitled to draw adverse inferences and pass
consequential orders as may be called for in accordance
with law. The primary purpose is to establish a direct
dialogue between the court and the accused and to put
every important incriminating piece of evidence to the
accused and grant him an opportunity to answer and
explain. ...”
(emphasis supplied)
4 (2010) 8 SCC 249
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s) 3685-86 of 2025 Page 4 of 11
5
7.2. In Indrakunwar v. State of Chhattisgarh , this Court,
through one of us (Sanjay Karol, J.), after consideration of
various judgments formulated the following principles vis-à-
vis this Section:
“35 . A perusal of various judgments 15 rendered by this
Court reveals the following principles, as evolved over
time when considering such statements.
35.1 The object, evident from the Section itself, is to
enable the accused to themselves explain any
circumstances appearing in the evidence against them.
35.2 The intent is to establish a dialogue between the
Court and the accused. This process benefits the
accused and aids the Court in arriving at the final
verdict.
35.3 The process enshrined is not a matter of
procedural formality but is based on the cardinal
principle of natural justice, i.e., audi alterum partem.
35.4 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.
35.5 In such a statement, the accused may or may not
admit involvement or any incriminating circumstance
or may even offer an alternative version of events or
interpretation. The accused may not be put to prejudice
by any omission or inadequate questioning.
35.6 The right to remain silent or any answer to a
question which may be false shall not be used to his
detriment, being the sole reason.
35.7 This statement cannot form the sole basis of
conviction and is neither a substantive nor a substitute
piece of evidence. It does not discharge but reduces the
prosecution's burden of leading evidence to prove its
case. They are to be used to examine the veracity of the
prosecution's case.
35.8 This statement is to be read as a whole. One part
cannot be read in isolation.
35.9 Such a statement, as not on oath, does not qualify
as a piece of evidence under Section 3 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872; however, the inculpatory aspect as
5 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1364
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s) 3685-86 of 2025 Page 5 of 11
may be borne from the statement may be used to lend
credence to the case of the prosecution.
35.10 The circumstances not put to the accused while
rendering his statement under the Section are to be
excluded from consideration as no opportunity has been
afforded to him to explain them.
35.11 The Court is obligated to put, in the form of
questions, all incriminating circumstances to the
accused so as to give him an opportunity to articulate
his defence. The defence so articulated must be
carefully scrutinized and considered.
35.12 Non-compliance with the Section may cause
prejudice to the accused and may impede the process of
arriving at a fair decision.”
6
7.3. In Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) as subsequently
approved by a bench of three-Judges in Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh
7
v. State of U.P . and Another , the Court laid down the
following factors:
“ 22. The law consistently laid down by this Court can
be summarised as under:
22.1. 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.
22.2. 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.
22.3. The Court must ordinarily eschew material
circumstances not put to the accused from
consideration while dealing with the case of the
particular accused.
22.4. 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.
6 (2023) 17 SCC 95
7 2025 SCC OnLine SC 913
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s) 3685-86 of 2025 Page 6 of 11
22.5. 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.
22.6. In case such irregularity is curable, even the
appellate court can question the accused on the material
circumstance which is not put to him.
22.7. In a given case, the case can be remanded to the
trial court from the stage of recording the
supplementary statement of the accused concerned
under Section 313CrPC.
22.8. 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.”
8
[See also: Ranvir Yadav v. State of Bihar and Naresh Kumar
9
v. State of Delhi) ]
8. Having duly considered the position of law and principles
as above, we now examine the statements of the appellant(s)
recorded under this Section. For ready reference, the statements
are reproduced below:
Appellant No.1 (Chandan Pasi) statement:
“My name is Chandan Pasi, My Father's name is
Birendra Pasi …
(1) Question: - Did you listen to the Deposition of the
Witnesses?
Answer: - Yes
(2) Question: - The witnesses have alleged and stated
that on March 31, 2016, at 8:05 AM, with common
intention along with other accused persons killed the
Informant's father Ghughali Pasi by assaulting with
katta, daba. What do you have to say about this?
Answer: False statement.
8 (2009) 6 SCC 595
9 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1641
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s) 3685-86 of 2025 Page 7 of 11
(3) Question- It is also alleged and evidenced against
you that you entered the Informant's house and verbally
abused and physically assaulted the Informant's niece
Poonam Kumari and Kajal Kumari, along with his
nephew, Raju Kumar. What do you have to say about
this?
Answer: False allegations.
(4) Question: - Whether you want to Say anything in
your defence?
Answer: I am innocent.”
Appellant No.2 (Pappu Pasi) statement:
“My name is Pappu Pasi @ Hindustan Pasi …
(1) Question: - Did you listen to the Deposition of the
Witnesses?
Answer: - Yes
(2) Question: - The witnesses have alleged and stated
that on March 31, 2016, at 8:05 AM with common
intention along with other accused persons killed the
Informant's father Ghughali Pasi by assaulting with
katta, daba. What do you have to say about this?
Answer: False Allegation.
(3) Question- It is also alleged and evidenced against
you that you entered the Informant's house and verbally
abused and physically assaulted the Informant's niece
Poonam Kumari and Kajal Kumari, along with his
nephew, Raju Kumar. What do you have to say about
this?
Answer: False allegation.
(4) Question: - Whether you want to Say anything in
your defence?
Answer: I am innocent.”
Appellant No.3 (Gidik Pasi) statement:
“My name is Gidik Pasi …
(1) Question: - Did you listen to the Deposition of the
Witnesses?
Answer: - Yes
(2) Question: - The witnesses have alleged and stated
that on March 31, 2016, at 8:05 AM with common
intention along with other accused persons killed the
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s) 3685-86 of 2025 Page 8 of 11
Informant's father Ghughali Pasi by assaulting with
katta, daba. What do you have to say about this?
Answer: False Allegation.
(3) Question- It is also alleged and evidenced against you
that you entered the Informant's house and verbally
abused and physically assaulted the Informant's niece
Poonam Kumari and Kajal Kumari, along with his
nephew, Raju Kumar. What do you have to say about
this?
Answer: False allegations.
(4) Question: - Whether you want to Say anything in
your defence?
Answer: I am innocent.”
9. The statements extracted above reveal a sorry state of
affairs- an abject failure on the part of the Court in complying
with the basic tenets of law. The statements given by all three
persons are carbon copies of each other. How such statements
can pass muster at the hands of the learned Trial Judge is
something which we fail to understand. Out of the four
questions asked, directly related to the sequence of events, were
only two. The second question was as general as can be, with
reference to only the bare allegations, to which an omnibus
denial was issued. The third was also of similar nature, saying
that it has been alleged and evidenced, and nothing further. This
cannot be said to be the putting of every material circumstance.
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
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s) 3685-86 of 2025 Page 9 of 11
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. [See: Sovaran Singh Prajapati
10
v. State of U.P. ]
10. In view of the above observations, we need not delve into
the other grounds raised, questioning the concurrent conviction
against the appellants herein. On this ground alone, the Appeals
are allowed and the matter is sent back to the concerned Trial
Court to recommence from the state of the recording of the
Section 313 CrPC statements. We may clarify that the remand is
limited to the cases of the three appellants before us and our
observations herein shall not affect the sanctity of the findings
already arrived at, qua the other accused persons. A trial is a
function of memory; it is this memory that, when translated into
spoken word testimony on oath, becomes evidence, and thus the
same is susceptible to the vagaries of time. Keeping in view the
fact that the offence is from the year 2016, and while being
cognizant of the observations of the Constitution Bench in High
11
Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P. , we direct
the concerned Trial Court to do the needful within four months
from the date of the communication of this judgment.
11. Registrar (Judicial) to communicate this judgment and
order to the learned Registrar General, High Court of Judicature
10 2025 SCC OnLine SC 351
11 (2024) 6 SCC 267
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s) 3685-86 of 2025 Page 10 of 11
at Patna, who will forthwith communicate the same to the
concerned court for necessary action and compliance.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
……………………………………J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
……………………………………J.
(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 01, 2025
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s) 3685-86 of 2025 Page 11 of 11
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No (s). 5137-5138 OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No (s). 3685-3686 of 2025)
CHANDAN PASI & ORS. ... APPELLANT (S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF THE BIHAR ... RESPONDENT (S)
J U D G M E N T
Leave granted.
2. The present appeals arise from the final judgments
th th
and orders dated 4 September, 2024 and 26 September, 2024
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal
Appeal (DB) No.443 of 2017, which affirmed the judgment of
th
conviction dated 27 March 2017 and the order of sentence
Signature Not Verified
th
dated 29 March 2017 passed by the Court of District
Digitally signed by
RAJNI MUKHI
Date: 2025.12.01
17:51:45 IST
Reason:
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s) 3685-86 of 2025 Page 1 of 11
1
& Session Judge, Buxar in Sessions Trial No.256 of 2016,
whereby a total of six persons were sentenced to life
imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- each under
2
Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 , one year simple
imprisonment each under Sections 448 & 323 along with
Section 34 IPC with all of them running concurrently. Before us
are three of the six convicts namely – Chandan Pasi, Pappu Pasi
and Gidik Pasi. Here only it may be noted that there was a
seventh accused person who was, by the process of law held to
be a juvenile and thus dealt with in accordance with the
applicable law.
3. By way of a factual background, it shall suffice to take
notice of the following:
st
3.1. On 31 March 2016, the informant Kachan Pasi along
with his father Ghughali Pasi, mother Kouta Devi and
sister-in-law Dharmsheela Devi were returning from the
fields of one Nanhaku Singh when the accused persons
surrounded the above-named and assaulted Ghughali
Pasi with a katta, who died as a result thereof. Particular
allegations of such assault were also levelled against
Joni Pasi @Ravindra Pasi.
3.2. The Trial Court convicted in the manner already referred
to supra . All the accused persons before the Trial Court
filed appeals under Section 374(2) of the Code of
1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’.
2 ‘IPC’ for short.
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s) 3685-86 of 2025 Page 2 of 11
3
Criminal Procedure 1973 , in which the High Court
upheld the findings of the Court below.
4. We have heard Ms. Anjana Prakash, learned Senior
Counsel for the appellants and learned Counsel appearing for
the State.
5. A perusal of the Special Leave Petition reveals that
amongst other grounds, the primary contention rests on the non-
compliance of Section 313, CrPC. This Court had indicated in
the order issuing notice that, should the ground of proper
compliance be made out, only then, we would proceed to
examine other grounds.
6. One of the non-negotiable requirements of a fair trial is
that the accused persons should have ample opportunity to
dispel the case and claims of the prosecution against them. This
ample opportunity can take many forms, whether it is adequate
representation through counsel or the opportunity to call
witnesses to present their side of the case or to have the
occasion to answer each and every allegation against them, on
their own, in their own words. The last one happens under
Section 313 CrPC.
7. This Court, in many judgments, delineated the scope and
object of Section 313 CrPC. The position is no longer up for
debate. Even so, we may refer to certain pronouncements for
the sake of completeness.
3 Hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s) 3685-86 of 2025 Page 3 of 11
4
7.1. In Sanatan Naskar v. State of W.B , this Court as
follows, regarding the scope of the examination under
Section 313 CrPC:
“ 21. The answers by an accused under Section 313
CrPC are of relevance for finding out the truth and
examining the veracity of the case of the prosecution.
The scope of Section 313 CrPC is wide and is not a
mere formality. ...
22. As already noticed, the object of recording the
statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC is to
put all incriminating evidence to the accused so as to
provide him an opportunity to explain such
incriminating circumstances appearing against him in
the evidence of the prosecution. At the same time, also
permit him to put forward his own version or reasons, if
he so chooses, in relation to his involvement or
otherwise in the crime. The court has been empowered
to examine the accused but only after the prosecution
evidence has been concluded. It is a mandatory
obligation upon the court and, besides ensuring the
compliance therewith, the court has to keep in mind
that the accused gets a fair chance to explain his
conduct. The option lies with the accused to maintain
silence coupled with simpliciter denial or, in the
alternative, to explain his version and reasons for his
alleged involvement in the commission of crime. This
is the statement which the accused makes without fear
or right of the other party to cross-examine him.
However, if the statements made are false, the court is
entitled to draw adverse inferences and pass
consequential orders as may be called for in accordance
with law. The primary purpose is to establish a direct
dialogue between the court and the accused and to put
every important incriminating piece of evidence to the
accused and grant him an opportunity to answer and
explain. ...”
(emphasis supplied)
4 (2010) 8 SCC 249
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s) 3685-86 of 2025 Page 4 of 11
5
7.2. In Indrakunwar v. State of Chhattisgarh , this Court,
through one of us (Sanjay Karol, J.), after consideration of
various judgments formulated the following principles vis-à-
vis this Section:
“35 . A perusal of various judgments 15 rendered by this
Court reveals the following principles, as evolved over
time when considering such statements.
35.1 The object, evident from the Section itself, is to
enable the accused to themselves explain any
circumstances appearing in the evidence against them.
35.2 The intent is to establish a dialogue between the
Court and the accused. This process benefits the
accused and aids the Court in arriving at the final
verdict.
35.3 The process enshrined is not a matter of
procedural formality but is based on the cardinal
principle of natural justice, i.e., audi alterum partem.
35.4 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.
35.5 In such a statement, the accused may or may not
admit involvement or any incriminating circumstance
or may even offer an alternative version of events or
interpretation. The accused may not be put to prejudice
by any omission or inadequate questioning.
35.6 The right to remain silent or any answer to a
question which may be false shall not be used to his
detriment, being the sole reason.
35.7 This statement cannot form the sole basis of
conviction and is neither a substantive nor a substitute
piece of evidence. It does not discharge but reduces the
prosecution's burden of leading evidence to prove its
case. They are to be used to examine the veracity of the
prosecution's case.
35.8 This statement is to be read as a whole. One part
cannot be read in isolation.
35.9 Such a statement, as not on oath, does not qualify
as a piece of evidence under Section 3 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872; however, the inculpatory aspect as
5 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1364
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s) 3685-86 of 2025 Page 5 of 11
may be borne from the statement may be used to lend
credence to the case of the prosecution.
35.10 The circumstances not put to the accused while
rendering his statement under the Section are to be
excluded from consideration as no opportunity has been
afforded to him to explain them.
35.11 The Court is obligated to put, in the form of
questions, all incriminating circumstances to the
accused so as to give him an opportunity to articulate
his defence. The defence so articulated must be
carefully scrutinized and considered.
35.12 Non-compliance with the Section may cause
prejudice to the accused and may impede the process of
arriving at a fair decision.”
6
7.3. In Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) as subsequently
approved by a bench of three-Judges in Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh
7
v. State of U.P . and Another , the Court laid down the
following factors:
“ 22. The law consistently laid down by this Court can
be summarised as under:
22.1. 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.
22.2. 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.
22.3. The Court must ordinarily eschew material
circumstances not put to the accused from
consideration while dealing with the case of the
particular accused.
22.4. 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.
6 (2023) 17 SCC 95
7 2025 SCC OnLine SC 913
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s) 3685-86 of 2025 Page 6 of 11
22.5. 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.
22.6. In case such irregularity is curable, even the
appellate court can question the accused on the material
circumstance which is not put to him.
22.7. In a given case, the case can be remanded to the
trial court from the stage of recording the
supplementary statement of the accused concerned
under Section 313CrPC.
22.8. 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.”
8
[See also: Ranvir Yadav v. State of Bihar and Naresh Kumar
9
v. State of Delhi) ]
8. Having duly considered the position of law and principles
as above, we now examine the statements of the appellant(s)
recorded under this Section. For ready reference, the statements
are reproduced below:
Appellant No.1 (Chandan Pasi) statement:
“My name is Chandan Pasi, My Father's name is
Birendra Pasi …
(1) Question: - Did you listen to the Deposition of the
Witnesses?
Answer: - Yes
(2) Question: - The witnesses have alleged and stated
that on March 31, 2016, at 8:05 AM, with common
intention along with other accused persons killed the
Informant's father Ghughali Pasi by assaulting with
katta, daba. What do you have to say about this?
Answer: False statement.
8 (2009) 6 SCC 595
9 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1641
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s) 3685-86 of 2025 Page 7 of 11
(3) Question- It is also alleged and evidenced against
you that you entered the Informant's house and verbally
abused and physically assaulted the Informant's niece
Poonam Kumari and Kajal Kumari, along with his
nephew, Raju Kumar. What do you have to say about
this?
Answer: False allegations.
(4) Question: - Whether you want to Say anything in
your defence?
Answer: I am innocent.”
Appellant No.2 (Pappu Pasi) statement:
“My name is Pappu Pasi @ Hindustan Pasi …
(1) Question: - Did you listen to the Deposition of the
Witnesses?
Answer: - Yes
(2) Question: - The witnesses have alleged and stated
that on March 31, 2016, at 8:05 AM with common
intention along with other accused persons killed the
Informant's father Ghughali Pasi by assaulting with
katta, daba. What do you have to say about this?
Answer: False Allegation.
(3) Question- It is also alleged and evidenced against
you that you entered the Informant's house and verbally
abused and physically assaulted the Informant's niece
Poonam Kumari and Kajal Kumari, along with his
nephew, Raju Kumar. What do you have to say about
this?
Answer: False allegation.
(4) Question: - Whether you want to Say anything in
your defence?
Answer: I am innocent.”
Appellant No.3 (Gidik Pasi) statement:
“My name is Gidik Pasi …
(1) Question: - Did you listen to the Deposition of the
Witnesses?
Answer: - Yes
(2) Question: - The witnesses have alleged and stated
that on March 31, 2016, at 8:05 AM with common
intention along with other accused persons killed the
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s) 3685-86 of 2025 Page 8 of 11
Informant's father Ghughali Pasi by assaulting with
katta, daba. What do you have to say about this?
Answer: False Allegation.
(3) Question- It is also alleged and evidenced against you
that you entered the Informant's house and verbally
abused and physically assaulted the Informant's niece
Poonam Kumari and Kajal Kumari, along with his
nephew, Raju Kumar. What do you have to say about
this?
Answer: False allegations.
(4) Question: - Whether you want to Say anything in
your defence?
Answer: I am innocent.”
9. The statements extracted above reveal a sorry state of
affairs- an abject failure on the part of the Court in complying
with the basic tenets of law. The statements given by all three
persons are carbon copies of each other. How such statements
can pass muster at the hands of the learned Trial Judge is
something which we fail to understand. Out of the four
questions asked, directly related to the sequence of events, were
only two. The second question was as general as can be, with
reference to only the bare allegations, to which an omnibus
denial was issued. The third was also of similar nature, saying
that it has been alleged and evidenced, and nothing further. This
cannot be said to be the putting of every material circumstance.
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
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s) 3685-86 of 2025 Page 9 of 11
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. [See: Sovaran Singh Prajapati
10
v. State of U.P. ]
10. In view of the above observations, we need not delve into
the other grounds raised, questioning the concurrent conviction
against the appellants herein. On this ground alone, the Appeals
are allowed and the matter is sent back to the concerned Trial
Court to recommence from the state of the recording of the
Section 313 CrPC statements. We may clarify that the remand is
limited to the cases of the three appellants before us and our
observations herein shall not affect the sanctity of the findings
already arrived at, qua the other accused persons. A trial is a
function of memory; it is this memory that, when translated into
spoken word testimony on oath, becomes evidence, and thus the
same is susceptible to the vagaries of time. Keeping in view the
fact that the offence is from the year 2016, and while being
cognizant of the observations of the Constitution Bench in High
11
Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P. , we direct
the concerned Trial Court to do the needful within four months
from the date of the communication of this judgment.
11. Registrar (Judicial) to communicate this judgment and
order to the learned Registrar General, High Court of Judicature
10 2025 SCC OnLine SC 351
11 (2024) 6 SCC 267
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s) 3685-86 of 2025 Page 10 of 11
at Patna, who will forthwith communicate the same to the
concerned court for necessary action and compliance.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
……………………………………J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
……………………………………J.
(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 01, 2025
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s) 3685-86 of 2025 Page 11 of 11