Legal Review and Analysis of Chandan Pasi & Ors vs The State of Bihar 2025 INSC 1371
Case Synopsis
Chandan Pasi & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar, 2025 INSC 1371.Caption: Supreme Court Remands Murder Trial, Holding Omnibus Section 313 CrPC Examination a Fundamental Defect Vitiating Fair Trial.Alternative Formulations:
Holding: The Supreme Court rules that a trial court's failure to specifically put each material circumstance to the accused under Section 313 CrPC constitutes a fatal irregularity, warranting remand for fresh compliance.
Principle: A generic and non-specific examination under Section 313 CrPC denies the accused a meaningful opportunity of defence, thereby violating the core principles of natural justice and vitiating the trial.
1. Heading of the Judgment
Case Name: Chandan Pasi & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar
Citation: 2025 INSC 1371
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Date: December 01, 2025
2. Related Laws and Sections
The judgment is centered on the interpretation and mandatory compliance of the following legal provision:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC):
Section 313: Examination of the accused by the court. This section mandates that the court shall, after the prosecution evidence is concluded, question the accused on the evidence to enable them to explain any incriminating circumstances.
Relevant Precedents Cited:
Sanatan Naskar v. State of W.B. (2010) 8 SCC 249
Indrakunwar v. State of Chhattisgarh 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1364
Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023) 17 SCC 95
Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh v. State of U.P. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 913
3. Judgment Details
A. Facts of the Case
The appellants, Chandan Pasi, Pappu Pasi, and Gidik Pasi, were three of six individuals convicted for the murder of Ghughali Pasi on March 31, 2016. The prosecution case was that the accused persons surrounded and assaulted the deceased with a katta (a country-made firearm). The Trial Court convicted all under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The High Court upheld the conviction. The appellants approached the Supreme Court, challenging the conviction primarily on the ground of improper examination under Section 313 of the CrPC.
B. Issues Before the Supreme Court
The principal legal issue framed by the Court was:
Whether the examination of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was conducted in accordance with the mandatory principles laid down by law, and if its defective execution vitiated the trial, causing prejudice to the appellants.
C. Ratio Decidendi (Court's Reasoning)
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions of the three appellants, and remanded their cases to the Trial Court. The Court's reasoning is anchored in the following points:
Mandatory and Substantive Nature of Section 313: The Court reaffirmed that the examination under Section 313 CrPC is not a mere procedural formality but a fundamental right of the accused, essential for a fair trial. Its purpose is to establish a direct dialogue between the court and the accused, allowing the accused to explain incriminating evidence.
Deficient and Generic Examination: Upon reviewing the recorded statements, the Court found them to be identical "carbon copies." The questions posed were vague and omnibus. For instance, the key question clubbed all allegations into one generic query about the incident, failing to specify individual roles, weapons, or separate incriminating circumstances from witness testimonies.
Failure to Put Material Circumstances Specifically: Citing Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court held that each material circumstance must be put to the accused "specifically, distinctively and separately." The Trial Court's generalized questioning failed this test, constituting a serious irregularity.
Presumption of Prejudice: The Court ruled that such a fundamental defect in complying with Section 313 inherently prejudices the accused by denying them a meaningful opportunity to defend themselves. This vitiates the trial.
Role of the Prosecutor: The Court also noted the failure of the public prosecutor in assisting the court to conduct a proper examination, reminding that a prosecutor is an officer of the court duty-bound to ensure justice.
4. Core Principle of the Judgment
The Imperative of Specific and Meaningful Examination Under Section 313 CrPC
This judgment authoritatively addresses the scope and consequence of non-compliance with Section 313 CrPC. The Supreme Court moved beyond a superficial check for compliance and laid down a substantive standard for how the examination must be conducted.
Juridical Analysis:
The core issue was the conflict between a ritualistic, box-ticking approach to a procedural safeguard and its substantive purpose of ensuring fairness. The High Court had affirmed the conviction, perhaps overlooking the qualitative deficiency in the examination. The Supreme Court intervened to correct this, emphasizing that the "how" of the examination is as crucial as the "fact" of the examination.
The Court established that:
The Right is Individualized: The obligation to explain evidence is personal to each accused. Therefore, questions must be tailored to the specific evidence against that particular accused, not framed as collective, generalized accusations.
Prejudice is Inferred from Defect: When material circumstances are not put specifically, the law presumes prejudice. The accused does not need to prove how they would have answered differently; the denial of the opportunity itself is the injury.
Remedy is Restoration of Right, Not Appellate Review: The appropriate cure for such a foundational flaw is not for the appellate court to sift through evidence but to restore the proceeding to the stage where the right was denied—i.e., a remand for a proper Section 313 examination. This safeguards the structural integrity of the trial process.
This judgment elevates Section 313 CrPC from a procedural step to a core component of the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. It places a positive obligation on trial judges to ensure the examination is conducted with diligence and specificity.
5. Final Outcome and Supreme Court Directions
The Supreme Court passed the following operative directions:
The appeals were allowed.
The impugned judgments of the High Court and the Trial Court convicting and sentencing the three appellants (Chandan Pasi, Pappu Pasi, and Gidik Pasi) were set aside.
The cases against these three appellants were remanded to the Trial Court with a specific direction to recommence the proceedings from the stage of recording their statements under Section 313 CrPC.
The remand was limited only to these three appellants and did not affect the convictions of the other accused.
Considering the offence dated back to 2016, the Trial Court was directed to complete this specific exercise within four months from the date of receipt of the order.
The Registry was directed to communicate the order to the High Court of Patna for necessary compliance.
6. MCQs Based on the Judgment
Question 1: In Chandan Pasi vs. State of Bihar, what was the Supreme Court's primary reason for setting aside the convictions?
A) The eyewitnesses were found to be untrustworthy.
B) The forensic report linking the accused to the crime was missing.
C) The trial court failed to conduct a proper and specific examination of the accused under Section 313 CrPC.
D) The motive for the crime was not established by the prosecution.
Question 2: As per the Supreme Court's ruling, what is the correct course of action when a trial court fails to put material circumstances specifically to the accused under Section 313 CrPC?
A) The appellate court should itself question the accused and decide the case.
B) The conviction should be automatically converted to a lesser offence.
C) The case should be remanded to the trial court for a fresh examination from the stage of Section 313 CrPC.
D) The defect is ignored if the overall evidence is convincing.
Blog Posts
