Questions Put To Accused In Most Mechanical Manner: Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction In 1982 Corruption Case
The Supreme Court remarked that the manner in which the Trial Court had recorded the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC was not at all in tune with the requirements of the said provision.
Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has set aside the conviction in a corruption case on the ground that the questions were put to the accused persons in a most mechanical manner.
The Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal preferred by the accused persons, challenging the Judgment of the Patna High Court which dismissed their Appeals.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed, “Four questions generally were put to the appellants, that too, in a most mechanical manner. These questions did not reflect the specific prosecution evidence which came on record qua the appellants. As all the incriminating evidence were not put to the notice of the appellants, therefore, there was a clear breach of Section 313 CrPC as well as the principle of audi alteram partem. Certainly, this caused serious prejudice to the appellants to put forth their case. Ultimately, such evidence were relied upon by the court to convict the appellants.”
The Bench remarked that the manner in which the Trial Court had recorded the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) was not at all in tune with the requirements of the said provision.
Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta represented the Appellants/Accused while ASG Vikramjit Banerjee represented the Respondent/State.
Brief Facts
In 1982, the deceased accused (Ajay) was the Branch Manager of State Bank of India (SBI). The allegation was that the said deceased misused his official position and conspired with another deceased accused (Chetharu and Shiv) along with the Appellants (Ramji and his two sons, Mukund and Ashok). Thereby, they alleged to have fraudulently and dishonestly obtained payment of Rs. 71,456/- to Chetharu and Rs. 12,57,810/- to Shiv against certain bails which were accompanied by fake transport receipts issued by the Appellants, showing consignment of grains of different consignees. In the process, SBI suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 13,29,266/- as the principal amount.
By entering into criminal conspiracy by and between the accused, they had allegedly obtained the above payment illegally and fraudulently. Upon consideration of the evidence tendered, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Appellants under Sections 420, 468, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Sections 5(2) and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (PC Act). The High Court dismissed their Appeals against the conviction and hence, they approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, said, “In the circumstances, it is neither possible nor feasible to remand the case of appellant No. 3 to the concerned Juvenile Justice Board to carry out the exercise under Sections 14 and 15 of the JJ Act. Therefore, the judgment and order of the trial court dated 29.05.2006 as affirmed by the High Court vide the judgment and order dated 24.11.2011 qua appellant no. 3 are hereby set aside on the ground of juvenility.”
The Court noted that the trial was concluded in 2006 and 19 years have gone by since then; hence, instead of aiding the cause of justice, it will lead to miscarriage of justice if the case qua the two Appellants are remanded to the Trial Court to restart the trial from the stage of recording the statements of the accused persons under Section 313 CrPC.
“In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that it is neither possible nor feasible to order such remand. Consequently, appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt because of such omission in the recording of their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. since the trial court had relied on the evidence adverse to the appellants while convicting them”, it held.
The Court concluded that their conviction and sentence has become untenable.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal, set aside the impugned Judgment, and cancelled the bail bonds of the accused.
Cause Title- Ramji Prasad Jaiswal @ Ramjee Prasad Jaiswal and Ors. v. State of Bihar (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 738)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta, AOR Aditya Samaddar, Advocates Mudit Jain, Samprikta Ghoshal, Mahima Malhotra, Nitya Gupta, Aayush Goswami, and Saiful Haque.
Respondent: ASG Vikramjit Banerjee, AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advocates Santosh Kumar, Bharti Tyagi, Abhishek Singh, Praneet Pranav, and Mrigank Pathak.
