# FAINUL KHAN v. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER

- **Citation:** [2019] 13 S.C.R. 924
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2019-10-04
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 937 of 2011
- **Bench:** Navin Sinha, B. R. Gavai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/fainul-khan-v-state-of-jharkhand-and-another-33255
- **Pages:** 14

## Headnote

Penal Code, 1860: ss.302/149 and ss.323/149 and s.147 -
Conviction under - Plea of appellant that charge was framed under
ss.302/149 and ss.323/149 against six persons but charge under
s.147 was against four persons only and therefore was defective
without aid of s.141 and s.146 - Held: Originally there were six
accused - Two of them have since been deceased - Appellants were
well aware that six of them were charged together for a common
assault under ss.302/149 and 323/149 because of their sharing a
common object - Appellants were also aware that two of the accused
were carrying a deadly weapon, spears, and which were used for
assault - Therefore, omission by the court in framing charge under
s.147 alone against four persons only was a mere inadvertent
omission - Moreover, objection about a defective charge, without
any evidence of the prejudice caused, was raised for the first time
in the instant appeal and for that reason also did not merit
consideration.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.313 - Plea of appellant
that they were seriously prejudiced in their defence because proper
opportunity to defend was denied under s.313 as the incriminating
questions put to them were extremely casual and perfunctory - Held:
s.313 incorporates the principle of audi alteram partem - It provides
an opportunity to the accused for his defence by making him aware
fully of the prosecution allegations against him and to answer the
same in support of his innocence - But equally there cannot be a
generalised presumption of prejudice to an accused merely by reason
of any omission or inadequate questions put to him - Ultimately it
will be a question to be considered in the facts and circumstances
of each case including the nature of other evidence available, the
kind of questions put to an accused, considered with anything
further that the accused may state in his defence - In the facts of
 [2019] 13 S.C.R. 924
924
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
925
the instant case, considering the nature of ocular evidence available
of the injured witnesses P.Ws. 7 and 8 who were also cross-examined
by the appellants, no prejudice was caused to the appellants - A
specific question was put to the appellants that they participated in
an unlawful assembly with the common object of murdering the
deceased - Further, it was also put to them that they had caused
injuries to P.W. 7 and 8 - Merely because no questions were put to
the appellants with regard to the individual assault made by each
of them, it cannot be said in the facts of the case that any prejudice
was caused to them - Appellants did not offer any explanation or
desire to lead evidence except for stating that they were falsely
implicated.
Criminal Law: Absence of injury report of injured eye witnesses
- Effect on prosecution case - Prosecution case was that P.W. 8
and deceased were going together when they were surrounded and
assaulted by the accused persons - There was no lacunae in the
evidence or cross-examination of the witness to doubt his presence
and the injuries suffered by him in the same occurrence - P.W. 7, a
resident of the locality and an independent witness also suffered
injuries during the same occurrence - P.W. 8 during the course of
his deposition also showed the scars caused to him by his injuries,
noticed by the trial judge - The statement of the two witnesses also
stated to have been recorded at the hospital - The fact that there
was no injury report, can at best be classified as a defective
investigation but cannot raise doubts about the credibility of their
being injured witnesses in the same occurrence - The officer-incharge of the police station where the deceased and injured were
taken, specifically deposed that he submitted a request for the injury
report of the witnesses and pursuant to which their injury reports
were made available to him - Only thereafter the charge sheet was
submitted by him - There was no material in his cross-examination
to discredit his statements - Investigation, defe

## Text

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
924
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
FAINUL KHAN
v.
STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER
(Criminal Appeal No(s). 937 of 2011)
OCTOBER 04, 2019
[NAVIN SINHA AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: ss.302/149 and ss.323/149 and s.147 -
Conviction under - Plea of appellant that charge was framed under
ss.302/149 and ss.323/149 against six persons but charge under
s.147 was against four persons only and therefore was defective
without aid of s.141 and s.146 - Held: Originally there were six
accused - Two of them have since been deceased - Appellants were
well aware that six of them were charged together for a common
assault under ss.302/149 and 323/149 because of their sharing a
common object - Appellants were also aware that two of the accused
were carrying a deadly weapon, spears, and which were used for
assault - Therefore, omission by the court in framing charge under
s.147 alone against four persons only was a mere inadvertent
omission - Moreover, objection about a defective charge, without
any evidence of the prejudice caused, was raised for the first time
in the instant appeal and for that reason also did not merit
consideration.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.313 - Plea of appellant
that they were seriously prejudiced in their defence because proper
opportunity to defend was denied under s.313 as the incriminating
questions put to them were extremely casual and perfunctory - Held:
s.313 incorporates the principle of audi alteram partem - It provides
an opportunity to the accused for his defence by making him aware
fully of the prosecution allegations against him and to answer the
same in support of his innocence - But equally there cannot be a
generalised presumption of prejudice to an accused merely by reason
of any omission or inadequate questions put to him - Ultimately it
will be a question to be considered in the facts and circumstances
of each case including the nature of other evidence available, the
kind of questions put to an accused, considered with anything
further that the accused may state in his defence - In the facts of
 [2019] 13 S.C.R. 924
924
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
925
the instant case, considering the nature of ocular evidence available
of the injured witnesses P.Ws. 7 and 8 who were also cross-examined
by the appellants, no prejudice was caused to the appellants - A
specific question was put to the appellants that they participated in
an unlawful assembly with the common object of murdering the
deceased - Further, it was also put to them that they had caused
injuries to P.W. 7 and 8 - Merely because no questions were put to
the appellants with regard to the individual assault made by each
of them, it cannot be said in the facts of the case that any prejudice
was caused to them - Appellants did not offer any explanation or
desire to lead evidence except for stating that they were falsely
implicated.
Criminal Law: Absence of injury report of injured eye witnesses
- Effect on prosecution case - Prosecution case was that P.W. 8
and deceased were going together when they were surrounded and
assaulted by the accused persons - There was no lacunae in the
evidence or cross-examination of the witness to doubt his presence
and the injuries suffered by him in the same occurrence - P.W. 7, a
resident of the locality and an independent witness also suffered
injuries during the same occurrence - P.W. 8 during the course of
his deposition also showed the scars caused to him by his injuries,
noticed by the trial judge - The statement of the two witnesses also
stated to have been recorded at the hospital - The fact that there
was no injury report, can at best be classified as a defective
investigation but cannot raise doubts about the credibility of their
being injured witnesses in the same occurrence - The officer-incharge of the police station where the deceased and injured were
taken, specifically deposed that he submitted a request for the injury
report of the witnesses and pursuant to which their injury reports
were made available to him - Only thereafter the charge sheet was
submitted by him - There was no material in his cross-examination
to discredit his statements - Investigation, defect in.
Penal Code, 1860: ss.302/149 and ss.323/149 - Conviction
under - Appellants were undoubtedly the members of an unlawful
assembly some of whom were also armed with spears and assaulted
the deceased - All the accused surrounded the deceased obviously
to prevent his escape - The initial assault was made on the head of
the deceased with the lathi by appellant-S - The deceased fell down
FAINUL KHAN v. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
926
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
and when he was trying to stand up, he was assaulted by two persons
with spears - P.W. 7 was assaulted on the head by appellant-F - In
the fracas the fact that the assault by appellant-M landed on the
thigh of the witness was not of much relevance - Likewise, P.W. 8
was assaulted by appellant-S on the face and head - The fact that
the co-accused may have assaulted on the head again cannot be
considered very relevant to eschew the absence of common object
- No reason to interfere with the order of conviction.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Originally there were six accused. Two of them
have since been deceased and the fate of one is not known. The
appellants were well aware that six of them were charged together
for a common assault under Sections 302/149 and 323/149 because
of their sharing a common object. The appellants were also aware
that two of the accused were carrying a deadly weapon, spears,
and which were used for assault. Therefore, no prejudice was
caused to the appellants and the omission by the court in framing
charge under Section 147 alone against four persons only was a
mere inadvertent omission. The objection about a defective
charge, without any evidence of the prejudice caused, has been
raised for the first time in the instant appeal and for that reason
also merits no consideration. [Para 9][931-D, F-H]
2. P.W. 8 and the deceased were going together when they
were surrounded and assaulted by the accused persons. There
was no lacunae in the evidence or cross-examination of the witness
to doubt his presence and the injuries suffered by him in the
same occurrence. P.W. 7, a resident of the locality and an
independent witness also suffered injuries during the same
occurrence. However, P.W. 6 does not appear to be eye witness.
The witness was at home and reached the place of occurrence
after hearing the commotion by which time the deceased was
lying on the ground. P.W.7 deposed that P.W.6 reached after him.
P.W. 7 deposed of assault by appellant-S upon P.W. 8 with lathi
and also upon the witness himself by appellants-F and M causing
injuries on his head and right hand. Appellant-M is also stated to
have assaulted the witness on his thigh with lathi. P.W.8 deposed
that the accused surrounded him and the deceased. Appellant-S
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
927
assaulted the deceased on the head. The witness was assaulted
on his face, head and hand with the lathi. Both the witnesses
deposed that they were then taken to the hospital along with the
deceased where their injuries were examined. P.W. 8 during the
course of his deposition also showed the scars caused to him by
his injuries, noticed by the trial judge. The statement of the two
witnesses is also stated to have been recorded at the hospital.
The fact that there was no injury report, can at best be classified
as a defective investigation but cannot raise doubts about the
credibility of their being injured witnesses in the same occurrence.
P.W. 11, the officer-in-charge of the police station where the
deceased and injured were taken, has specifically deposed that
he submitted a request for the injury report of the witnesses and
pursuant to which their injury reports were made available to
him. Only thereafter was the charge sheet was submitted by him.
There was no material in his cross-examination to discredit his
statements. [Para 10][932-A-F]
3. Section 313, Cr.P.C. incorporates the principle of audi
alteram partem. It provides an opportunity to the accused for his
defence by making him aware fully of the prosecution allegations
against him and to answer the same in support of his innocence.
But equally there cannot be a generalised presumption of
prejudice to an accused merely by reason of any omission or
inadequate questions put to an accused thereunder. Ultimately it
will be a question to be considered in the facts and circumstances
of each case including the nature of other evidence available, the
kind of questions put to an accused, considered with anything
further that the accused may state in his defence. In the facts of
the instant case, considering the nature of ocular evidence
available of the injured witnesses P.Ws. 7 and 8 who were also
cross-examined by the appellants, and the evidence of P.W. 11,
no prejudice was caused to the appellants. A specific question
was put to the appellants that they participated in an unlawful
assembly with the common object of murdering the deceased.
Further, it was also put to them that they had caused injuries to
P.W. 7 and 8. Merely because no questions were put to the
appellants with regard to the individual assault made by each of
FAINUL KHAN v. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
928
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
them, it cannot be said in the facts of the case that any prejudice
has been caused to them. [Paras 11- 13][932-G; 933-F-G;
934-A-C]
Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar 1995 Suppl (1)
SCC 80 : [1994] 1 Suppl. SCR 483 - relied on.
4. The appellants were undoubtedly the members of an
unlawful assembly some of whom were also armed with spears
and assaulted the deceased. All the accused surrounded the
deceased obviously to prevent his escape. The initial assault was
made on the head of the deceased with the lathi by appellant-S.
The deceased fell down and when he was trying to stand up, he
was assaulted by two persons with spears. P.W. 7 was assaulted
on the head by appellant-F. In the fracas the fact that the assault
by appellant-M landed on the thigh of the witness is not of much
relevance. Likewise, P.W. 8 was assaulted by appellant-S on the
face and head. The fact that the co-accused may have assaulted
on the head again cannot be considered very relevant to eschew
the absence of common object. [Para 17][936-F-H]
Shobhit Chamar v. State of Bihar, (1998) 3 SCC 455 :
[1998] 2 SCR 117; Fahim Khan v. State of Bihar (2011)
13 SCC 142 : [2011] 5 SCR 577; Sukha v. State of
Rajasthan [1956] SCR 288 - relied on.
Masalti v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 202 : [1964] SCR
133; Ranvir Yadav v. State of Bihar, (2009) 6 SCC 595:
[2009] 7 SCR 653; Samsul Haque v. State of Assam,
(2019) (11) SCALE 458; Najabhai Desurbhai Wagh v.
Valerabhai Deganbhai Vagh and Ors., (2017) 3 SCC
261 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2009] 7 SCR 653
referred to
Para 3
(2019) (11) SCALE 458
referred to
Para 3
(2017) 3 SCC 261
referred to
Para 6
[1994] 1 Suppl. SCR 483
relied on
Para 14
[1998] 2 SCR 117
relied on
Para 15
[2011] 5 SCR 577
relied on
Para 7
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
929
[1956] SCR 288
relied on
Para 16
[1964] SCR 133
referred to
Para 17
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
937 of 2011.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.05.2009 of the High Court
of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 211 of 2000.
With
Criminal Appeal Nos. 939, 938 of 2011.
 Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv., Sudarshan Rajan, Dr. K. B. Sounder
Rajan, Mahesh Kumar, Vijay Kumar Sharma, Ms. Mehaak Jaggi,
Ms. Ankita Tiwari, P. Narasimhan, Advs. for the Appellant.
Anil K. Jha, Jayesh Gaurav, Ms. Diksha Ojha, Ms. Priyanka Tyagi,
Kuldeep Rai, T. Mahipal, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
NAVIN SINHA, J.
1. The appellants are aggrieved by their conviction under Section
302/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) sentencing them to rigorous
imprisonment for life, along with conviction under Sections 323/149 and
147 IPC, sentencing them to varied terms of imprisonment under the
same. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
2. The occurrence is said to have taken place on 01.11.1983at
about 06.30 PM. The accused were variously armed with spears and
lathis. P.W. 7 and 8 are stated to be injured eye witnesses. P.W 6 also
claimed to be an eye witness. The police report was lodged by P.W. 8 at
the hospital.
3. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Sidharth Luthra making the lead
arguments on behalf of the appellants submitted that charge was framed
under Sections 302/149 and 323/149 IPC against six persons. But the
charge framed under Section 147 was defective being against four
persons only and without the aid of Sections 141 and 146. It was next
submitted that the appellants have been seriously prejudiced in their
defence because proper opportunity to defend was denied under Section
313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (Cr.P.C.) as the incriminating
FAINUL KHAN v. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
930
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
questions put to them were extremely casual and perfunctory in barely
two pages. All relevant questions with regard to the accusations were
not put to the appellants, denying them the opportunity to present their
defence. It cannot be considered as a mere irregularity, to hold that no
prejudice has been caused to the appellants. Emphasising the inconsistency
in the prosecution evidence it was submitted that P.W. 7 claims lathi
injury on his thigh and leg, but P.Ws. 6 and 8 are silent on the role of
appellant Fainul Khan, and appellant Mir Shaukat is stated to have
assaulted on the thigh of P.Ws. 6 and 7 when according to the F.I.R. he
hit on the head of P.W. 8. Reliance in support of the submissions was
placed on Masalti vs. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 202, Ranvir Yadav
vs. State of Bihar, (2009) 6 SCC 595 and Samsul Haque vs. State of
Assam, (2019) SCC Online 1093; 2019 (11) SCALE 458.
4. It was next submitted that P.W. 6 was not an eye witness to the
assault. He had arrived upon hearing the commotion after the appellants
had left and the deceased was lying on the ground. P.W. 6 also does also
refer to the presence of P.W. 7 at the place of occurrence.
5. The evidence of P.Ws. 6 and 8 was sought to be discredited on
account of their being related to the deceased. The claim of P.Ws. 7 and
8 to be injured eye witnesses was also challenged in absence of any
injury report with regard to them. False implication of the appellants
could not be ruled out in view of previous enmity having been admitted
by the prosecution witnesses. P.W. 8 deposed that the deceased was
assaulted on his head from behind and fell on his face, but no facial
injury has been found on the deceased.
6. The deceased was assaulted with a spear by accused Siddiq
and Zabbar. The allegations of assault by the appellants on the deceased
with a lathi are omnibus, since only one bruise has been found on the
upper arm. There existed no common object because in that event nothing
prevented the appellants from individual assaults each on a sensitive
part of the body of the deceased, such as the head. Alternatively, the
three appellants at best may be liable for a lesser offence relying on
Najabhai Desurbhai Wagh vs. Valerabhai Deganbhai Vagh and Ors.,
(2017) 3 SCC 261.
7. Learned counsel for the State submitted that there was no
lacunae in the examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In
any event the appellants have not been able to demonstrate any prejudice.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
931
Moreover this objection cannot be raised at the present belated stage
when it had not been raised at any earlier stage. Reliance was placed on
Shobhit Chamar vs. State of Bihar, (1998) 3 SCC 455 and Fahim
Khan vs. State of Bihar, (2011) 13 SCC 142.
8. The absence of any injury report with regard to P.Ws. 7 and 8
may at best be a case of defective investigation. It cannot discredit them
as injured eye witnesses in view of the nature of their oral evidence and
that of P.W. 11, the officer-in-charge of the Kisko police station where
the deceased and the injured were taken for treatment. There are
concurrent findings with regard to the presence of the appellants. There
is ample evidence of the appellants sharing a common object with the
co-accused.
9. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties as
also perused the materials on record. Originally there were six accused.
Two of them have since been deceased and the fate of one is not known.
Section 464, Cr.P.C provides as follows:-
"464. Effect of omission to frame, or absence of, or error, in
charge.-(1) No finding, sentence or order by a Court of
competent jurisdiction shall be invalid merely on the ground that
no charge was framed or on the ground of any error, omission or
irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of charges,
unless, in the opinion of the Court of appeal, confirmation or
revision, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby.
xxx"
The appellants were well aware that six of them were charged
together for a common assault under Sections 302/149 and 323/149
because of their sharing a common object. The appellants were also
aware that two of the accused were carrying a deadly weapon, spears,
and which were used for assault. We are therefore of the considered
opinion that no prejudice has been caused to the appellants and the
omission by the court in framing charge under Section 147 alone against
four persons only was a mere inadvertent omission. The presence of
one bruise injury on the deceased is also not considered relevant in the
facts of the case. The objection about a defective charge, without any
evidence of the prejudice caused, has been raised for the first time in the
present appeal and for that reason also merits no consideration.
FAINUL KHAN v. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER
[NAVIN SINHA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
932
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
10. P.W. 8 and the deceased were going together when they were
surrounded and assaulted by the accused persons. We do not find any
lacunae in the evidence or cross-examination of the witness to doubt his
presence and the injuries suffered by him in the same occurrence. P.W.
7, a resident of the locality and an independent witness also suffered
injuries during the same occurrence. However, we are not satisfied that
P.W. 6 is an eye witness. The witness was at home and reached the
place of occurrence after hearing the commotion by which time the
deceased was lying on the ground. P.W.7 deposed that P.W.6 reached
after him. P.W. 7 deposed of assault by appellant Sainul upon P.W. 8
with lathi and also upon the witness himself by appellants Fainul and Mir
Shaukat causing injuries on his head and right hand. Appellant Mir
Shaukat is also stated to have assaulted the witness on his thigh with
lathi. P.W.8 deposed that the accused surrounded him and the deceased.
Appellant Sainul assaulted the deceased on the head. The witness was
assaulted on his face, head and hand with the lathi. Both the witnesses
deposed that they were then taken to the hospital along with the deceased
where their injuries were examined. P.W. 8 during the course of his
deposition also showed the scars caused to him by his injuries, noticed
by the trial judge. The statement of the two witnesses is also stated to
have been recorded at the hospital. The fact that there is no injury report,
in our opinion, can at best be classified as a defective investigation but
cannot raise doubts about the credibility of their being injured witnesses
in the same occurrence. The fact that P.W.8 may be related to the
deceased or previous enmity existed, are irrelevant in the facts of the
case. P.W. 11, the officer-in-charge of the Kisko police station where
the deceased and injured were taken, has specifically deposed that he
submitted a request for the injury report of the witnesses and pursuant
to which their injury reports were made available to him. Only thereafter
was the charge sheet was submitted by him. We do not find any material
in his cross-examination to discredit his statements.
11. Section 313, Cr.P.C. incorporates the principle of audi alteram
partem. It provides an opportunity to the accused for his defence by
making him aware fully of the prosecution allegations against him and to
answer the same in support of his innocence. The importance of the
provision for a fair trial brooks no debate.
"313.Power to examine the accused.-(1) In every inquiry or
trial, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
933
any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the
Court-
(a) may at any stage, without previously warning the accused,
put such questions to him as the Court considers necessary;
(b) shall, after the witnesses for the prosecution have been
examined and before he is called on for his defence, question him
generally on the case:
Provided that in a summons-case, where the Court has dispensed
with the personal attendance of the accused, it may also dispense
with his examination under clause (b).
(2) No oath shall be administered to the accused when he is
examined under sub-section (1).
(3) The accused shall not render himself liable to punishment by
refusing to answer such questions, or by giving false answers to
them.
(4) The answers given by the accused may be taken into
consideration in such inquiry or trial, and put in evidence for or
against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence
which such answers may tend to show he has committed.
(5) The court may take help of Prosecutor and Defence Counsel
in preparing relevant questions which are to be put to the accused
and the Court may permit filing of written statement by the accused
as sufficient compliance of this section."
12. But equally there cannot be a generalised presumption of
prejudice to an accused merely by reason of any omission or inadequate
questions put to an accused thereunder. Ultimately it will be a question
to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case including
the nature of other evidence available, the kind of questions put to an
accused, considered with anything further that the accused may state in
his defence. In other words, there will have to be a cumulative balancing
of several factors. While the rights of an accused to a fair trial are
undoubtedly important, the rights of the victim and the society at large
for correction of deviant behaviour cannot be made subservient to the
rights of an accused by placing the latter at a pedestal higher than
necessary for a fair trial.
FAINUL KHAN v. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER
[NAVIN SINHA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
934
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
13. In the facts of the present case, considering the nature of
ocular evidence available of the injured witnesses P.Ws. 7 and 8 who
have also been cross-examined by the appellants, and the evidence of
P.W. 11, we are of the considered opinion that no prejudice has been
caused to the appellants. A specific question was put to the appellants
that they participated in an unlawful assembly with the common object
of murdering the deceased. Further, it was also put to them that they had
caused injuries to P.W. 7 and 8. Merely because no questions were put
to the appellants with regard to the individual assault made by each of
them, it cannot be said in the facts of the case that any prejudice has
been caused to them. The questions asked being similar we consider it
proper to extract it with regard to one of the appellants. The appellants
did not offer any explanation or desire to lead evidence except for stating
that they had been falsely implicated. Questions asked to Fainul Khan
are extracted hereunder:
"Question: As has been stated by the prosecution witnesses, on
1st November, 1983 you along with other accused participated in
an unlawful assembly and took part in fighting. It that true?
Answer: No. It is wrong.
Question: It has also been said that you participated in the common
object of the unlawful assembly of murdering Rabbani Khan. Is
that true?
Answer: It is wrong.
Question: It has also been said the during the said incident, you
had also caused injuries upon Nabiul hasan Khan, Eshanul Khan,
Mir Tarabul and Mir Sanif. Is this true?
Answer: No. It is wrong.
Question: Do you want to say anything in your defence?
Answer: We have been falsely implicated."
14. In Suresh Chandra Bahri vs. State of Bihar, 1995 Suppl (1)
SCC 80, itwas observed as follows :
"26.....It is no doubt true that the underlying object behind Section
313 CrPC is to enable the accused to explain any circumstance
appearing against him in the evidence and this object is based on
the maxim audi alteram partem which is one of the principles of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
935
natural justice. It has always been regarded unfair to rely upon
any incriminating circumstance without affording the accused an
opportunity of explaining the said incriminating circumstance. The
provisions in Section 313, therefore, make it obligatory on the court
to question the accused on the evidence and circumstance
appearing against him so as to apprise him the exact case which
he is required to meet. But it would not be enough for the accused
to show that he has not been questioned or examined on a
particular circumstance but he must also show that such nonexamination has actually and materially prejudiced him and has
resulted in failure of justice. In other words in the event of any
inadvertent omission on the part of the court to question the
accused on any incriminating circumstance appearing against him
the same cannot ipso facto vitiate the trial unless it is shown that
some prejudice was caused to him. In Bejoy Chand Patra v.
State of W.B., AIR 1952 SC 105, this Court took the view that it is
not sufficient for the accused merely to show that he has not
been fully examined as required by Section 342 of the Criminal
Procedure Code (now Section 313 in the new Code) but he must
also show that such examination has materially prejudiced him.
The same view was again reiterated by this Court in Rama
ShankarSingh v. State of W.B.,1962 Suppl(1)SCR 49....."
15. In Shobhit Chamar (supra),considering the nature of ocular
evidence notwithstanding the infirmities at the stage of Section 313,
Cr.P.C., it was observed as follows:
"18. ....In the case before us, the prosecution case mainly rested
upon the ocular evidence of eyewitnesses. On conclusion of the
prosecution evidence, the trial court did put the necessary questions
relating to the evidence of eyewitnesses to both the appellants
and thereafter recorded the answers given by them.
xxxx
24. We have perused all these reported decisions relied upon by
the learned advocates for the parties and we see no hesitation in
concluding that the challenge to the conviction based on noncompliance of Section 313 CrPC first time in this appeal cannot
be entertained unless the appellants demonstrate that the prejudice
has been caused to them. In the present case as indicated earlier,
FAINUL KHAN v. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER
[NAVIN SINHA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
936
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
the prosecution strongly relied upon the ocular evidence of the
eyewitnesses and relevant questions with reference to this
evidence were put to the appellants. If the evidence of these
witnesses is found acceptable, the conviction can be sustained
unless it is shown by the appellants that a prejudice has been
caused to them. No such prejudice was demonstrated before us
and, therefore, we are unable to accept the contention raised on
behalf of the appellants."
16. Notwithstanding our conclusions as aforesaid that there has
in fact been no irregularity in procedure under Section 313 Cr.P.C. much
less any prejudice caused to the appellants we shall now deal with the
issue whether the appellants could at this stage raise objections with
regard to the same. In Sukha vs. State of Rajasthan,1956 SCR 288,it
was observed as follows :-
"35. .....We have recently decided that we will be slow to entertain
question of prejudice when details are not furnished; also the fact
that the objection is not taken at an early stage will be taken into
account. There is not a hint of prejudice in the petition filed by the
appellants here in the High Court for leave to appeal to this Court;
nor was this considered a ground for complaint in the very lengthy
and argumentative petition for special leave filed in this Court.
The only complaint about prejudice was on the score that there
was no proper examination under Section 342 of the Criminal
Procedure Code. We decline to allow this matter to be raised."
17. Masalti (supra) concerned a case of death sentence and it
does not appear that attention was invited to Sukha (supra). In view of
the above discussion we regret our inability to consider the alternative
submission of Shri Luthra. The appellants were undoubtedly the members
of an unlawful assembly some of whom were also armed with spears
and assaulted the deceased. All the accused surrounded the deceased
obviously to prevent his escape. The initial assault was made on the
head of the deceased with the lathi by appellant Sainul. The deceased
fell down and when he was trying to stand up, he was assaulted by two
persons with spears. P.W. 7 was assaulted on the head by appellant
Fainul. In the fracas the fact that the assault by appellant Mir Shaukat
landed on the thigh of the witness is not of much relevance. Likewise,
P.W. 8 was assaulted by appellant Sainul on the face and head. The fact
that the co-accused may have assaulted on the head again cannot be
considered very relevant to eschew the absence of common object.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
937
18. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the conviction
of the appellants. The appeals are dismissed. The appellants are stated
to be on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and they are directed to
surrender forthwith to serve out remaining period of sentence.
Devika Gujral
Appeals dismissed.
FAINUL KHAN v. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER
[NAVIN SINHA, J.]