Citing the failure to present material circumstances to the accused during the examination under Section 313 of the CrPC as the reason, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, overturned a conviction under the NDPS Act
In the recent case of Nababuddin @ Mallu @ Abhimanyu v. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court overturned the appellant's conviction for contraband possession due to serious procedural irregularities. The Court emphasized that the failure to present crucial circumstances during the appellant's examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure amounted to a material illegality.
The appellant had been in jail for over five years for a case dating back to 2001, and subjecting him to further examination would cause undue prejudice. The Court held that the failure to put two relevant circumstances to the appellant during his examination under Section 313 CrPC was fatal to the prosecution case, and as a result, the appellant's conviction could not be sustained.
The appeal reached the Supreme Court after the Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld the appellant's conviction under Section 15 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution's case involved the discovery of contraband in parcels at Ambala station and the subsequent arrest of the appellant at Kurail railway station.
During the trial, the Court observed that key circumstances against the appellant were not presented during his examination under Section 313 of CrPC. Notably, the appellant was not questioned about inquiring about contraband parcels at the railway station, and the circumstance that the railway receipt was in his name was omitted.
The Court referred to the principles outlined in Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) regarding Section 313 CrPC, emphasizing the duty of the trial court to present each material circumstance distinctly and separately. It clarified that the failure to do so constitutes a serious irregularity that can vitiate the trial if shown to have prejudiced the accused.
The Court considered the objective of the examination under Section 313, which is to provide the accused with an opportunity to explain any circumstance appearing against them in the evidence. It asserted that even if the irregularity is curable, the appellate court has the authority to question the accused on material circumstances not presented to them.
In this case, the Court held that the two circumstances alleged against the appellant must be kept out of consideration due to the failure to present them during the examination. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and released the appellant.