Accused’s signature found on blank page; Gauhati High Court sets aside POCSO conviction and orders retrial after defective questioning under Section 313 CrPC

The appellant challenged his conviction under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and Section 377 IPC by the Special Judge (POCSO), Kamrup (Metro), in Sessions Case No. 256/2018.

In appeal, the High Court found that the trial court had put composite questions to the appellant under Section 313 CrPC, had not put the incriminating evidence of the medical officer and investigating officer to him, and that the record contained a page bearing the appellant’s signature but no writing.

1. Whether the appellant’s examination under Section 313 CrPC was adequate where multiple incriminating circumstances were combined in single questions and material evidence was not put to him.

2. Whether the deficiencies in that examination and the trial record warranted setting aside the conviction and remanding the case for further proceedings.

Section 313 CrPC requires the court to question the accused fairly and carefully about the incriminating circumstances, putting each material fact or circumstance separately so the accused can understand and answer the case against him.

The court relied on Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2021) 6 SCC 1, and Nar Singh v. State of Haryana, (2015) 1 SCC 496, for the trial court’s duty to conduct a proper examination under Section 313 CrPC.

Evidence or material not put to the accused under that provision cannot be used against him.

The trial court presented each prosecution witness’s evidence as a single composite question, requiring the appellant to respond to several distinct allegations at once.

It also failed to put the medical evidence—including the findings of contusions around the anal margin and the opinion of recent anal penetration—and the investigating officer’s evidence to him.

The High Court held that these omissions denied the appellant a fair opportunity to explain or rebut material relied on by the prosecution.

The signed but otherwise blank page in the record further raised concern about the integrity and reliability of the proceedings.

The Section 313 examination was therefore not merely defective but fell short of the applicable legal requirements.

It directed the trial court to put separate questions on each relevant fact or circumstance and to endeavour to conclude the case within six months of receiving the order.

The appellant was permitted to seek bail during the remainder of the trial, with any application to be considered on its own merits.