In a landmark decision that reinforces the principles of a fair trial, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that failing to properly question an accused person about incriminating evidence is not just a procedural slip—it can be fatal to the prosecution's case.

The Court observed that when a judge fails to put specific "material circumstances" (evidence) to the accused during their examination, it causes "grave prejudice," effectively stripping the person of their right to defend themselves.

The Core Issue: Section 313 CrPC (Section 351 BNSS)

At the heart of this ruling is Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which has now been replaced by Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

In simple terms, this law requires the trial judge to talk directly to the accused after the prosecution has presented its evidence. The judge must explain the evidence found against them and ask for their side of the story. The Supreme Court emphasized that this is a "substantive safeguard" to ensure fairness. It is the moment where an accused person, who may not be a legal expert, gets to explain the "why" and "how" of the circumstances appearing against them.

A 35-Year-Old Case Ends in Acquittal

The ruling was delivered by a Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta while hearing an appeal filed by Suresh Sahu and another. The case dates back to May 1990, involving the death of a sweet seller named Gajendra in Jharkhand.

After a long legal battle, the Trial Court convicted the appellants in 1994, and the Jharkhand High Court upheld the conviction in 2023. However, the Supreme Court found deep-rooted flaws in how the trial was conducted, leading to a total acquittal of the accused.

The "Mechanical" Examination: Only Three Questions

What shocked the Bench was the "perfunctory" and "mechanical" nature of the accused's examination. During the trial, only three generic questions were put to the accused.

The Court found that these questions:

Were framed in an extremely general manner.
Did not mention specific evidence or circumstances found by investigators.
Almost exactly reproduced the legal language of the charges rather than explaining the facts.

The Bench remarked that the purpose of Section 313 is to make the accused aware of each and every incriminating circumstance. If the accused is not specifically confronted with the evidence, their opportunity to defend themselves becomes "illusory."

Why the Court Refused a "Do-Over"

Normally, if an appellate court finds that Section 313 was not followed correctly, it can send the case back (remand) to the trial court to record the statements again.

In this instance, however, the Supreme Court declined to do so. The incident happened in 1990—over 35 years ago. The Bench noted that directing a fresh examination after three and a half decades would be an "exercise in futility" and would not serve the cause of justice.

Contradictory FIRs and Unreliable Witnesses

Beyond the procedural error, the Court found significant issues with the prosecution’s facts:

The Second FIR Mystery: There were two different versions of the incident. The first report (FIR) was filed on May 12, 1990. A second, "improved" version was filed the next day, which specifically named the appellants. The Court found that the prosecution tried to suppress the first version to bring in a more "exaggerated" story.
Identity Crisis: The informant claimed he couldn't identify the attackers initially, even though the accused were his own nephews. The Court found it "highly improbable" that a father would fail to recognize his own relatives attacking his son.
Presence at the Scene: The Court concluded that the informant was likely not even present at the scene of the crime and was introduced as an eyewitness later to bolster the case.

Equality of Evidence: Prosecution vs. Defence

A vital takeaway from this judgment is the Court’s stance on Defence Witnesses.

The Supreme Court noted that both the Trial Court and High Court had ignored the testimony of two witnesses brought by the accused. The Bench reiterated a golden rule of criminal law: The evidence of a defence witness carries the same weight as that of a prosecution witness. Courts cannot simply discard what the defence says without a plausible reason. In this case, the defence's version created a "clear doubt" regarding the identity of the attackers.

Conclusion: The Prosecution "Miserably Failed"

The Supreme Court held that the prosecution had "miserably failed" to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The previous convictions were based on a "misreading and erroneous appreciation of evidence."

By setting aside the conviction, the Supreme Court has sent a clear message to trial courts across India: Fairness is not a formality. Whether it is 1990 or 2024, the right of an accused to be heard properly—and to be questioned specifically on the evidence against them—remains a cornerstone of the Indian judicial system.

Case Title: Suresh Sahu and Another v. The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta

Judgment Link :- https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2023/10958/10958_2023_2_124_66239_Judgement_27-Nov-2025.pdf