REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL  APPEAL NO.10 OF 2002

Ranvir Yadav ….Appellant

Versus

State of Bihar ….Respondent                

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Patna High  

Court  directing  reversal  of  the  judgment  of  acquittal  recorded  by learned  Third  Additional  

Sessions Judge, Munger.  All the accused persons were acquitted by the aforesaid judgment.  

However one of accused respondent i.e.  Kirat  Yadav before the High Court  died during the  

pendency of the appeal.  A Criminal Revision was also filed by the informant-Lalitdeo Prasad  

and the said revision was taken along with the State’s appeal.

2. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:

As per the fard beyan of Lalitdeo Prasad Singh, on 31st July, 1982 at about 8 A.M. informant  

alongwith several other persons, namely, Rameshwar Mistry, Kailash Singh, Brahmdeo Singh,  

the Govt. Amin(Omar Ali), Biranchi Das, Challitar Singh, Jalim Singh, the wife of Rameshwar  

Mistry, Bilo Mistry, Shiv Das, Kedar Das Rajendra Mistry, Manikant Mishra and 5 to 6 others  

proceeded from Sirjua Ghat to the Diara across the Ganges river into the boat of Rameshwar

Mistry. When this contingent of the informant's party anchored into the Diar side of the river for  

some persons from the boat  came out  and proceeded to same distance,  some criminals  also  

alighted from small  boat from the eastern and western side and asked these persons to stop.  

When these persons who had alighted from the boat of the informant, did not stop, there was  

firing from the side of the criminals which hit Manikant Mishra (P.W.1). The criminals caught  

hold of Rajendra Mistry, Rameshwar Mistry, Brahmdeo Singh (all three deceased persons) and  

brought them near the boat of the informant.  On the boat of the informant,  still  sitting were  

Kailash Singh, Biranchi Das, Challitra Singh, Shiv Das and the Government Amin. Near the  

boat, Rajendra Mistry was shot at by Kirat Yadav by rifle. Rameshwar Mistry was also shot at by  

Ranvir Yadav. Khantar Sao shot dead Bramhdeo Singh. Ranvir Yadav assaulted the Amin with  

rifle. Rajendra Mistry, Rameshwar , Mistry and Brahmdeo Singh succumbed to their fire-arm  

injuries  at  the  spot.  The  dead  bodies  of  these  three  deceased  persons  were  loaded  on  the  

informant's boat. Thereafter the boat of the informant was occupied by some of the criminals and  

other criminals boarded a small fisher man’s boat and carried the informant’s boat inside the  

river towards east, beheaded the dead bodies at the order of Ranvir Yadav and also slit open the  

stomach of the dead bodies and thereafter threw the cut parts of the dead body into the river.  On  

the way inside the river, Kailash Singh was also shot dead by Ranvir Yadav as a lesson on the  

ground that Kailash had filed certain criminal case against the assailants.  The informant and the  

other persons left inside the boat were also threatened of dire consequences, if they disclosed the  

matter to the police.  The informant and three others were brought to the bank of the river and  

made to  disembark from the  boat.   The Amin was  still  carried  further  into  the  river.   The  

informant came to Sirjua ghat.  The cause of occurrence as given in the far beyan, is that Ranvir  

Yadav had taken possession of several lands of Sirjua Village and the villagers wanted their  

lands to be measured and demarcated and so being angered at  this  step of the villagers,  the  

accused persons committed the aforesaid occurrence.  

The defence of the accused persons was that the police was inimical to the main accused Ranvir

Yadav whose father, late Hariballabh Yadav, was killed by A.S.P. and in this connection a case  

was filed by the servant of Ranvir Yadav.  Kanta Sao and Kirat Yadav were employees of Ranvir  

Yadav and therefore they were implicated falsely in the instant case.  The police was pressing the  

accused persons hard to withdraw the case of murder filed against the police officials.

Twelve witnesses  were examined  to  further  the provision  version.   Several  documents  were  

exhibited.  The  trial  Court  held  that  the  prosecution  version  lacks  credibility  and,  therefore,  

directed  acquittal.  On  appeal  the  High  Court  held  that  there  was  improper  analysis  of  the  

evidence and accordingly held that the acquittal was not proper.  Therefore the accused Ranvir  

Yadav i.e. present appellant and Khantar Sao was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for  

offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’).  The  

appeal  in  respect  of  accused Mithu Yadav was dismissed.   The position  is  that  out  of  four  

accused persons one had died during trial and the acquittal of one was maintained by the High  

Court and one had also not filed an appeal as it was stated that he had also died.  The present  

appeal relates to accused Ranbir Yadav.  Though various points were urged in respect of the  

appeal, the primary stand was that incriminating materials were not put to him in examination  

under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the ‘Code’).

3. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand submitted that the accused  

is a history sheeter, has a long criminal record and therefore there is no scope for interference in  

this appeal.   According to him all  the relevant questions were put during examination under  

Section 313 of the Code.

4. The purpose of Section 313 of the Code is  set  out  in  its  opening words- ‘for the  

purpose of enabling the accused to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against  

him.’ In Hate Singh, Bhagat Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1953 SC 468) it has been  

laid down by Bose, J that the statements of accused persons recorded under Section 313 of the

Code ‘are among the most important matters to be considered at the trial’. It was pointed out that  

the statements of the accused recorded by the committing magistrate and the Sessions Judge are  

intended in India to take the place of what in England and in America he would be free to state in  

his own way in the witness box and that they have to be received in evidence and treated as  

evidence and be duly considered  at  the  trial.  This  position  remains  unaltered even after  the  

insertion of Section 315 in the Code and any statement under Section 313 has to be considered in  

the same way as if Section 315 is not there.  

5. The object of examination under this Section is to give the accused an opportunity to  

explain the case made against him. This statement can be taken into consideration in judging his  

innocence or guilt. Where there is an onus on the accused to discharge, it depends on the facts  

and circumstances of the case if such statement discharges the onus.  

6. The word ‘generally’ in sub-section (1)(b) does not limit the nature of the questioning  

to one or more questions of a general nature relating to the case, but it means that the question  

should relate to the whole case generally and should also be limited to any particular part or parts  

of it. The question must be framed in such a way as to enable the accused to know what he is to  

explain,  what  are  the  circumstances which are against  him and for  which  an explanation  is  

needed. The whole object of the section is to afford the accused a fair and proper opportunity of  

explaining circumstances which appear against him and that the questions must be fair and must  

be  couched  in  a  form which  an  ignorant  or  illiterate  person  will  be  able  to  appreciate  and  

understand. A conviction based on the accused’s failure to explain what he was never asked to  

explain  is  bad  in  law.  The whole  object  of  enacting Section  313 of  the Code was  that  the  

attention of the accused should be drawn to the specific points in the charge and in the evidence  

on which the prosecution claims that the case is made out against the accused so that he may be  

able to give such explanation as he desires to give.  

7. The importance of observing faithfully and fairly the provisions of Section 313 of the  

Code cannot be too strongly stressed. It is not sufficient compliance to string together a long  

series  of  facts  and ask the accused what  he has  to  say about  them. He must  be questioned  

separately  about  each  material  substance  which  is  intended  to  be  used  against  him.  The  

questionings must be fair and couched in a form which an ignorant or illiterate person will be  

able to appreciate and understand. Even when an accused is not illiterate, his mind is apt to be  

perturbed when he is facing a charge of murder. Fairness, therefore, requires that each material  

circumstance should be put simply and separately in a way that an illiterate mind, or one which is  

perturbed or confused, can readily appreciate and understand.  

8. In order to appreciate the stand relating to not putting the relevant questions during the  

examination under Section 313 of the Code, the factual scenario needs to be noted.   

9. The examination under Section 313 of the Code the same reads as follows:

“Q.    It is stated on the basis of statement of witnesses that on 31.7.1982 at around 8.30 A.M.  Rameshwar Mistry was killed in Sirjua Diara by firing shot from rifle? What do you have to say  about it?

Ans. No, I was falsely implicated.

Q. It  is  also  stated  that  accused kept  the  dead body of  Rameshwar Mistry, Rajendra  Mistry and Bramhadeo Singh on boat and they took Lalit Narayan Singh Kailash Singh, Chalitar  Singh, Anil Sahib and Biranchi Das on the boat and killed Kailash Singh by proceeding further  and threw the dead body in river by cutting it what do you have to say?

A. Ans. Police has implicated me.  Safi Alam, S.P. of Khagaria committed murder  on 15th April, 1980 in the evening by firing shot.  My servant has filed case on him.  My uncle  filed case on police S.D.O. from that day, he started implicating me in the case and started saying  me to withdrew the case.  The police which comes, states the same thing.  I was not allowed to  study at that time.  I was   studying.  Due to this reason, I was falsely implicated.

Q. I heard the statement of witnesses.  Do you have to say anything in defence?

A. I write it later on.

Q. It is also evident that you fired shot from the rifle at the arm of Amin.”

10. It  is  true  as  contented  by learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  that  no  incriminating

materials  were  put  to  the  accused under  Section  313  of  the  Code.   There  is  no  accusation  

specifically put in  question  during examination as quoted above.  It only refers  to  victim of  

kidnapping.  So far as the question No.3 is concerned same relates to PW 10.  He did not say that  

he had seen gun fired by the appellant.

11. Above being the position the appeal deserves to be allowed.  It is a matter of regret  

and concern that the trial court did not indicate the incriminating material to the accused. Section  

313 of the Code is not an empty formality. There is a purpose behind examination under Section  

313 of the Code. Unfortunately, that has not been done. Because of the serious lapse on the part  

of the trial court the conviction as recorded has to be interfered with.  Conviction recorded by the  

High Court is set aside.  Bail bonds executed to give effect to the order of bail dated 8.1.2002  

shall stand cancelled because of the acquittal.

12. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.   

........................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

                         .....................J. (Dr.MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

New Delhi, May 05, 2009