The Supreme Court of India has set aside a murder conviction, ruling that prosecutors must act as officers of justice rather than conviction seekers. The Court cited serious non-compliance with Section 313 CrPC, compromising fair trial rights.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a landmark ruling that reinforces the principles of a fair criminal trial, the Supreme Court of India has held that a Public Prosecutor is an officer of the Court entrusted with a solemn duty to uphold justice, and cannot function merely as a representative seeking conviction on behalf of the State.
The judgment came in a case where a Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh set aside the concurrent convictions of three accused due to serious violations of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
Background of the Case
The appeals arose from a judgment of the Patna High Court, which had upheld the conviction and life imprisonment imposed by the District & Sessions Judge, Buxar, in Sessions Trial No. 256 of 2016.
According to the prosecution, on March 31, 2016, the deceased Ghughali Pasi was allegedly assaulted with a country-made pistol (katta) by the accused while returning from agricultural fields with his family. The Trial Court convicted six individuals under:
- Section 302/34 IPC – Murder with common intention
- Section 448 IPC – House-trespass
- Section 323 IPC – Voluntarily causing hurt
Three of the convicts, Chandan Pasi, Pappu Pasi, and Gidik Pasi, appealed before the Supreme Court.
Legal Issue
The central issue before the Court was whether the recording of the accused persons’ statements under Section 313 CrPC was conducted properly and in compliance with the mandatory legal requirements.
Senior Advocate Ms. Anjana Prakash, appearing for the appellants, argued that serious non-compliance prejudiced the defense and violated the right to a fair trial.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Court strongly criticized the conduct of the trial prosecutor, stating,
“The prosecutor is an officer of the Court and holds a solemn duty to act in the interest of justice… They cannot act as a counsel for the State with the sole aim of securing conviction.”
The Bench emphasized that the prosecutor must assist the Court impartially, ensuring fairness rather than acting in an adversarial manner.
The Bench described the recording of statements as a “sorry state of affairs”, noting that:
- The statements were carbon copies of each other
- The questions put were vague and general
- No specific incriminating evidence was put to the accused for explanation
The Court reiterated that Section 313 CrPC is not a formality, but a mandatory component of a fair trial, citing precedents including:
- Sanatan Naskar v. State of W.B. (2010)
- Indrakunwar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2023)
The Court allowed the appeals on the sole ground of procedural illegality and issued the following directions:
- The case is remanded to the Trial Court to recommence proceedings from the stage of recording Section 313 statements.
- The order applies only to the three appellants, without affecting the conviction of others not before the Court.
- The Trial Court must complete the proceedings within four months from the communication of the judgment.
- The Registrar (Judicial) has been directed to inform the Patna High Court of immediate compliance.
Case Title:
CHANDAN PASI & ORS. VERSUS THE STATE OF THE BIHAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No (s). 5137-5138 OF 2025
READ JUDGMENT