In a significant ruling underscoring the importance of procedural fairness, the Uttarakhand High Court has set aside the life imprisonment of a man convicted for his wife's 2013 murder. The court found serious lapses in the manner the trial court examined the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), a crucial stage meant to allow the accused to explain evidence against them.
A Flawed Examination Leads to Retrial Order
While deciding a criminal appeal filed by the convict, Sunil Singh Panwar from Uttarkashi, the High Court observed that he was not questioned in accordance with the law. On Wednesday, the court set aside the conviction under IPC Section 302 (murder) and remanded the case back to the trial court. It directed the lower court to expedite proceedings and conclude the matter within three months.
The bench strongly criticized the trial court's approach, pointing to a specific defective question. "In one question, the appellant was asked whether he heard statements of all 15 prosecution witnesses and what he had to say. This is the most defective examination under Section 313 of CrPC," the HC noted. It emphasized that prosecution evidence cannot be used against an accused unless they are given a proper chance to explain incriminating circumstances.
The Legal Imperative of Section 313 CrPC
The court stated, "We are of the considered opinion that non-compliance with the provisions of Section 313 of CrPC may cause prejudice to the accused." Consequently, it ordered a retrial starting from the stage of recording the accused's statement, precisely where the irregularity occurred. The trial judge has been directed to examine the appellant afresh before disposing of the case.
Section 313 of the CrPC grants courts the power to personally question an accused, without administering an oath, allowing them to explain any evidence pointing to their guilt. This provision is a cornerstone of a fair trial, ensuring the accused has a voice. While answers are not compelled and can be used in later proceedings, the process is vital for establishing the truth and preventing prejudice.
Background of the 2013 Uttarkashi Case
The case dates back to November 30, 2013, in Uttarkashi. According to the prosecution, Sunita Devi had remarried Sunil Singh Panwar in June 2013 after her first husband's death in 2005. She had a seven-year-old son from her first marriage. The prosecution alleged that Panwar used to pressure her to abandon her son and that on the fateful evening, he killed her by strangulation.
However, after the prosecution presented its evidence, Panwar claimed that his wife had committed suicide and maintained his innocence. His counsel argued in the High Court that he was not provided with all incriminating circumstances under Section 313 of CrPC during the trial, denying him a fair opportunity to explain the case against him. The High Court's ruling has now validated this argument, leading to a fresh legal battle.
