Case Title: Jai Prakash Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh
The accused was given concurrent punishment after being convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (often known as the "IPC") and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 in an appeal before the Court. According to the prosecution's case against the defendant, he and the other defendant went to the complainant's home and called him outside. The appellant fired at the complainant with a locally manufactured pistol. The mother of the deceased's testimony was used as primary evidence by the trial court to find the accused guilty.
The bench of the Apex Court said in the appeal, that additional witness statements needed to be properly examined. The bench read the statement and determined that it does not instill trust.
The accused had claimed in his Section 313, CrPC statement that he and the complainant belonged to competing student groups and that he had been wrongly implicated in the incident as a result of the enmity surrounding the elections. In order to support his alibi, he also provided two witnesses who testified that he was in his village because his mother was ill. The Court was also informed that the complainant's father, sister, and brother were all officers in the police force.
The bench noted that the Trial Court and the High Court's rulings did not carefully consider the defense explanation offered by the accused in his Section 313 statement. The following observations were made by the bench about the accused's entitlement under Section 313 CrPC:
A valuable right to prove one's innocence is granted under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which may also be viewed as a constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The intent of Section 313 CrPC is to give the accused a fair chance to address the unfavorable developments that have come to light against him during the course of the trial. To provide the accused with a fair chance to present his defense and provide an explanation, all the negative evidence must be presented as questions.
If all the facts are combined and the accused is only given one chance to defend himself, he may not be able to offer a reasonable and understandable defense. Such exercises are nothing more than pointless formalities that undermine fair opportunity.
The object of Section 313 of the Code is to establish a direct dialogue between the court and the accused.
The lower courts have a sacred responsibility to take the accused's defense into account. The judge must exercise caution when thinking about the same and carefully examine it. The same may be accepted or rejected by the Court, but neither action may be taken lightly. Writing must represent both the use of reason and reasoning.