SURENDRAPRASAD JAYASHANKER Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Before we part with the case we must mention that in course of the trial before the learned Special Judge the examination of the accused under sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 was not properly done and to some extent was violative of the very spirit and the purpose of sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973

(2.) The Presiding Judges while examining the accused persons under sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be on caution to see that each and every circumstance appearing against the accused from the prosecution evidence must be separately and distinctly put to the accused so as to enable the accused to explain the said circumstance. If the questions put to the accused are unusually longish and take in their sweep a number of circumstances appearing against the accused from the prosecution evidence the possibility of the accused being misguided can- not be ruled out though the same may not cause any serious prejudice or any prejudice to the accused. This staturorily prescribed obligation on the part of the learned Judges conducting the trial must be scrupulously discharged otherwise the accused may innocently give false answers to the questions put to him by the learned Presiding Judges or he may not be able to give any answer to the questions put by the Presiding Judge. This part of the trial is of utmost importance and if as a result of any inadvertence or on account of undue haste on the part of the learned Judges in the zeal of completing the trial soon if the examination of the accused under sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not properly done in its true and fair spirit the possibility of the trial Court doing injustice cannot be ruled out.

(3.) At this stage we should make the learned trial Judges conscious of the fact that if false answers or no answers are given by the accused persons in their examination recorded under sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in cases of circumstantial evidence the same may be used as a missing link as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Deonandan Mishra v. State of Bihar A.I.R. 1955 Supreme Court. p. 801 wherein the Supreme Court in terms has taken the view that in a case of circumstantial evidence not only should the various links in the chain of evidence be clearly established but the completed chain must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. But in a case like this where the various links as stated above have been satisfactorily made out the circumstances point to the appellant as the probable assailant with reasonable definiteness and in proximity to the deceased as regards time and situation and if he offers no explanation which if accepted though not proved would afford a reasonable basis for a conclusion on the entire case consistent with his innocence such absence of explanation or false explanation would itself be an additional link which completes the chain.