SHISHAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Hamirpur, which has been challenged in this appeal.

(2.) DURING the course of arguments, it came to the light-that while examining the accused under Section 313 of the Code of criminal Procedure, in short 'the Code', the learned trial Court did not put a material circumstance i. e. the Forensic Science Report Ex. PW. 11 /b to the accused whereby it is reported that the Salwar (Ex. P1) of the prosecutrix contained the semen stains. Further it also transpired that after recording the statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313, Cr. P. C. on 12-2-2007, the learned trial Court also did not resort to the provisions of Section 233 (1) of the Code but it straightway recorded the statement of the accused that he did not want to adduce defence evidence. Later the arguments were heard and the case decided.

(3.) THE object of Section 313 of the Code is to enable the accused to explain circumstance (s) appearing against him in the prosecution evidence. Any circumstance which has not been put has to be excluded from consideration. The learned trial Court inter alia relied upon the forensic report Ex. PW. 11/b which could not have been relied upon unless an opportunity was given to the accused to explain it thus, the aforesaid circumstance is required to be put to the appellant to seek explanation, so that no prejudice is caused to the accused.