Ranvir Yadav V/s State of Bihar

Information Type: Judicial Information
Court: Supreme Court
Date of Judgment(s): 2009-05-05
Case No: 10 of 2002
Case Type: Appeal (Criminal)
Judge Name: Arijit Pasasyat Mukundakam Sharma
Subject: Criminal Law-Life Imprisonment-Kidnapping - Abduction
Statutes / Acts: Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC), Code of Criminal Procedure 1973
Section: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.313 & Penal Code, 1860 - s.302.
Advocate: U.U. Lalit, Shishir Pinaki and Sanjay Jain (P) Gopal Singh and Manish Kumar (R)
State of Appellant(s): Bihar
History of Case No: Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2002 From the Judgement and Order dated 29.09.2000 of the Patna High Court in Govt. Appeal No. 24 of 1985
Equal Citation Details :

2009(3)ACR2859(SC), 2010(1)ALD(Cri)129, 2009CriLJ2963, JT2009(15)SC414, 2009N.C.C.636, (2009)43OCR562, 2009(3)PLJR145, 2009(7)SCALE60, (2009)6SCC595, [2009]7SCR653

Case Note / Description :

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. 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 Cr. P.C. 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. 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 serious charge. 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. [Paras 5-7] [658-F-H; 659-A-F] 2. It is true as contented for the appellant that no incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. There is no accusation specifically put in question during examination. It only refers to kidnapping.

 
 
SignUp For News Letter

Get news and updates from OLIS group, to your email :
Contact Information
Raj Kumar (Ph.D Research Scholar)
Dr. M. Madhusudhan (Supervisor)
DEPARTMENT OF LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE
II Floor, Tutorial Building, University of Delhi , Delhi-110 007
Mobile : +91-011-27666656
Email : info@olisindia.in
All Rights Reserved@ University of Delhi, Website Designed and Developed by Raj Kumar(Ph.D Research Scholar)