circumstances appearing against the accused persons have been elaborately put to them

Supreme Court of India
Sushil Ansal vs State Thr.Cbi on 5 March, 2014
Author: .....J.
Bench: T.S. Thakur, Gyan Sudha Misra
 REPORTABLE
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICITION
 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.597 OF 2010
Sushil Ansal Appellant
 Versus
State Through CBI Respondent
(With Crl. Appeals No.598/2010, 599/2010, 600-602/2010, 604/2010, 605-
616/2010 and 617-627/2010)
162. It was also contended by Mr. Jethmalani that all such incriminating circumstances as have been
used against the appellants were not put to the accused. The High Court has while dealing with a
similar contention urged before it carefully examined the case of each appellant and found no merit
in them. That apart we have been taken through the statements made by the accused under Section
313 Cr.P.C. and find that the same have comprehensively put the circumstances appearing against
the appellants to them and thereby given them an opportunity to explain the same. Besides, so long
as there is no prejudice demonstrated by the appellants on account of any deficiency in the
statements, there is no question of this Court interfering with the concurrent judgments and orders
of the Courts below.
163. We may at this stage simply refer to the decision of this Court in Jai Dev v. State of Punjab AIR
1963 SC 612, where P.B. Gajendragadkar, J. (as His Lordship then was) speaking for a three-Judge
Bench explained the purpose underlying the statement under Section 342 (now Section 313 Cr.P.C.)
in the following words:
The ultimate test in determining whether or not the accused has been fairly
examined under Section 342 would be to enquire whether, having regard to all the
questions put to him, he did get an opportunity to say what he wanted to say in
respect of prosecution case against him. If it appears that the examination of the
accused person was defective and thereby a prejudice has been caused to him, that
would no doubt be a serious infirmity.
164. We may also refer to the decision of this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of
Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793, where this Court declared that an omission in the statement under
Section 313 does not ipso facto vitiate the proceedings and that prejudice occasioned by such defect
must be established by the accused. The following passage is in this regard apposite:
Sushil Ansal vs State Thr.Cbi on 5 March, 2014
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/9513811/ 70
It is trite law, nevertheless fundamental, that the prisoners attention should be
drawn to every inculpatory material so as to enable him to explain it. This is the basic
fairness of a criminal trial and failures in this area may gravely imperil the validity of
the trial itself, if consequential miscarriage of justice has flowed. However, where
such an omission has occurred it does not ipso facto vitiate the proceedings and
prejudice occasioned by such defect must be established by the accused. In the event
of evidentiary material not being put to the accused, the court must ordinarily eschew
such material from consideration. It is also open to the appellate court to call upon
the counsel for the accused to show what explanation the accused has as regards the
circumstances established against him but not put to him and if the accused is unable
to offer the appellate court any plausible or reasonable explanation of such
circumstances, the Court may assume that no acceptable answer exists and that even
if the accused had been questioned at the proper time in the trial court he would not
have been able to furnish any good ground to get out of the circumstances on which
the trial court had relied for its conviction. In such a case, the Court proceeds on the
footing that though a grave irregularity has occurred as regards compliance with
Section 342 Cr.P.C. the omission has not been shown to have been caused prejudice
to the accused.
165. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in State (Delhi Admn.) v. Dharampal (2001) 10
SCC 372 and Bakhshish Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1967 SC 752.
166. Suffice it to say that the circumstances appearing against the accused persons have been
elaborately put to them under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The contention that the appellants suffered any
prejudice on account of a given circumstance not having put to them has, in our opinion, no merit
and is accordingly rejected.