Failure To Put Crucial DNA Evidence To Accused Vitiates Trial: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Death Penalty, Orders Fresh Trial From Section 313 CrPC Stage

The Court was hearing a death sentence reference under Section 366 CrPC along with a criminal appeal filed by the convict challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Court.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur found that several crucial incriminating circumstances, including the DNA report and statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC, were not put to the accused, thereby causing serious prejudice to his defence, and held: “Although, it is legally permissible for any Appellate Court to put the leftover incriminating evidence to an accused, or to direct the trial Court to do so, but that decision has not to be taken in a mechanical manner but has to be taken after analyzing the remaining incriminating evidence which was put to the accused, the prejudice caused to the accused, the defence setup, and the objections taken during the arguments. Since the accused has a right to examine defence evidence, and the evidence that comes in defence, if any, would also need to be analyzed and appreciated in appeal”.

Background

The prosecution's case was that the accused had abducted a five-year-old girl from her parents’ rented accommodation, subjected her to sexual assault, and subsequently murdered her. The trial court convicted the accused under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, and other allied statutes, and awarded the death penalty for the offence of murder.

Following the conviction, the Sessions Court made a reference to the High Court for confirmation of the death sentence. Simultaneously, the accused filed an appeal challenging both the conviction and sentence.

Court’s Observation

The High Court noted that the object of Section 313 CrPC is to afford the accused a fair opportunity to explain every incriminating circumstance appearing against him. This provision, the Court emphasised, is not a mere formality but a vital facet of a fair criminal trial rooted in the principles of natural justice.

The Bench observed that although it is legally permissible for an appellate court to put leftover incriminating evidence to the accused, or to direct the trial court to do so, such a course cannot be adopted mechanically. The decision must be informed by an analysis of the nature of the omitted evidence, the prejudice caused to the accused, the defence setup, and the objections raised during trial.

In the present case, the Court found that the DNA report, described as the most crucial piece of incriminating evidence, was never put to the accused during his Section 313 examination. Likewise, the statements of key prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 164 CrPC and the toxicology report indicating intoxication were also omitted.

The Court held that reading such material against the accused without allowing him to explain it was likely to cause serious prejudice. It further observed that the manner in which the Section 313 questionnaire was framed, by clubbing lengthy testimonies and multiple circumstances into omnibus questions, was contrary to the spirit and mandate of the provision.

Relying on a long line of Supreme Court precedents, the Bench reiterated that while every omission under Section 313 does not automatically vitiate a trial, a conviction cannot stand where the omission relates to vital incriminating material and results in a failure of justice. In such cases, the appellate court is empowered to order a retrial from the stage at which the irregularity occurred.

The Court also stressed that an accused has a statutory right to lead defence evidence, and any appellate evaluation must account for how the defence might have responded had the incriminating material been properly put to him.

Consequently, the Court concluded that “the only option available with this Court to do justice to the accused and the victim and her family is to remand the case back to the Trial Court to begin the trial from the stage of recording the statement of the accused under 313 CrPC”.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the conviction and death sentence awarded to the accused and remitted the matter to the trial court for a fresh trial from the stage of recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC.

The trial court was directed to put all incriminating evidence to the accused in accordance with the law and thereafter proceed further.

The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the case and that the matter was being remanded solely on account of procedural infirmities which had resulted in prejudice to the accused.

Cause Title: State of Haryana v. Vinod @ Munna

Appearances

Appellant: Yuvraj Shandilya, A.A.G., Haryana; Atul Gaur, A.A.G., Haryana.

Respondents: Ashwani Bhandwal and Sumit Sharma, Advocates

Click here to read/download Judgment