JUDGMENT - KANADE V.M., J.:---The appellant was charged under section 302 and section 324 of I.P.C. for having committed the murder of Mrs. Merabai and for having assaulted Mrs. Itwaribai. The Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, convicted the accused Suresh under section 302 of I.P.C., and he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. He was however acquitted for the offence punishable under section 324 of the I.P.C. The appellant is challenging the said judgment and order in this appeal. FACTS 2. The prosecution case is that on 28-5-1995, the Police Sub-Inspector, Kamptee received a telephonic message from the Rural Hospital, Kamptee that Mrs. Merabai, wife of the appellant herein and Mrs. Itwariyabai, mother of the appellant were brought in the hospital for medical aid. Since Mrs. Merabai had sustained serious injuries and her condition had become serious. She was referred to Mayo Hospital, Nagpur and P.S.I. recorded the statement of Mrs. Rewabai and registered the offence vide Crime No. 190/95 against the appellant/accused. In the said statement Mrs. Rewabai had mentioned that accused had assaulted her mother Mrs. Itwaribai and Mrs. Meerabai with a knife. By the time Mrs. Merabai was brought to Mayo Hospital, she had died on the way while being brought to the Hospital. P.S.I. Kamptee, therefore, registered an offence vide Crime No. 190/95 under section 302 and section 324 of I.P.C. against the accused and started investigation. 3. During the investigation, it transpired that on 28-5-1995 at about 2.00 p.m., accused had assaulted Mrs. Itwariyabai and his wife Mrs. Merabai with a knife. Merabai sustained injuries on her chest and stomach and Mrs. Itwariyabai sustained injuries on her left neck. Mrs. Itwariyabai was given medical aid and was discharged from the hospital. Since, the Investigating Officer was prima facie, convinced that the accused had committed the said offence, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused. The trial Court framed a charge against the accused for the offence punishable under section 302 section 324 of I.P.C. The appellant/accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and his defence was of total denial. The prosecution examined in all 8 witnesses, including the mother of the accused. The prosecution also led direct as well as circumstantial evidence. 4. The prosecution examined P.W. 1 Mrs. Itwariyabai, the mother of the accused, who in her testimony has mentioned that accused assaulted her daughter-in-law- Mrs. The prosecution examined in all 8 witnesses, including the mother of the accused. The prosecution also led direct as well as circumstantial evidence. 4. The prosecution examined P.W. 1 Mrs. Itwariyabai, the mother of the accused, who in her testimony has mentioned that accused assaulted her daughter-in-law- Mrs. Merabai with a knife and that initially the accused had tried to assault his own son, however when she tried to save her grandson, the accused assaulted her with knife on her left neck and thereafter, the accused assaulted Mrs. Merabai on her stomach with a knife. 5. The prosecution also examined P.W. 3 Chainabai, P.W. 4 Vimlabai and P.W. 5 Jumiyabai, who were declared hostile by the prosecution. The trial Court convicted the accused under section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. The appellant has challenged the said judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court. 6. We have heard Shri Daga, the learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mrs. Khade, A.P.P., appearing on behalf of the State. Shri Daga, the learned Counsel has taken us through the deposition which are recorded by the trial Court and also the evidence on record and also through the statement of the accused, which is recorded under section 313 of the Cri.P.C. We have also perused the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court. 7. Shri Daga, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the trial Court has not put all the incriminating circumstances to the accused while recording his statement under section 313 of the Cri.P.C. The statement of the accused/appellant herein has been recorded at Exhibit 42. The trial Court has asked seven questions to the accused which are as follows :--- Statement of accused recorded under section 313 of Cri.P.C. Q.No. 1: Have you heard the evidence of prosecution? Answer : Yes. Q.No. 2 : P.W. 1 Mrs. Itwariyabai in her deposition stated that you are her son and deceased Mirabai was your wife. What you have to say about it? Answer : It is correct. Q.No. 3 : She also stated in her deposition that you assaulted her and Mira with knife. What you have to say about it? Answer : It is false. Itwariyabai in her deposition stated that you are her son and deceased Mirabai was your wife. What you have to say about it? Answer : It is correct. Q.No. 3 : She also stated in her deposition that you assaulted her and Mira with knife. What you have to say about it? Answer : It is false. Q.No. 4 : P.W. 6 Jagannath Ingle in his deposition stated that you took police and in his presence you produced knife which was seized by them. What you have to say about it? Answer : It is false. Q.No. 5 : Do you want to say anything more? Answer : I do not know as to why my mother suspected that I assaulted Mira. Q.No. 6 : Do you want to lead any defence evidence? Answer : No. Q.No. 7 : Do you want to examine yourself on oath? Answer : No. 8. Shri Daga, the learned Counsel has submitted that since the incriminating circumstances have not been put to the accused, the said evidence cannot be relied upon. He has submitted that the accused should be given an opportunity to explain all the circumstances, and for that purpose, the matter should be remanded back to the trial Court, so that the trial Court may ask necessary questions to the accused and seek his explanation in respect of the incriminating evidence adduced against him. 9. The learned A.P.P., appearing on behalf of the prosecution opposed the said submission led by Shri Daga, appearing on behalf of the appellant. The learned A.P.P. has submitted that from the said questions, the gist of the evidence against the appellant has been put to him while recording his statement under section 313 of Cri.P.C. and that it is not necessary to ask questions in detail and it would be sufficient if reasonable opportunities is afforded to the accused in the form of broad and general questions. 10. In our view, the submissions made by Shri Daga will have to be accepted. Shri Daga has relied on two judgments of this Court, in the case of (Subhash Nagorao Junghare v. State of Maharashtra)1, reported in 2000 All.M.R. (Cri.) 1809. 10. In our view, the submissions made by Shri Daga will have to be accepted. Shri Daga has relied on two judgments of this Court, in the case of (Subhash Nagorao Junghare v. State of Maharashtra)1, reported in 2000 All.M.R. (Cri.) 1809. In the said case, the Division Bench of this Court after relying on the case of (Shivlal Shankar Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra)2, reported in 1997(1) B.Cri.C. 259 has held as follows :--- "The object of section 313 of Cri.P.C. is to enable the accused to explain each and every circumstance appearing in the evidence against him and for that purpose, all incriminating circumstances are required to be put to the accused distinctly and separately. It would not be sufficient compliance to string together a long series of facts and ask the accused about the same. The accused must be questioned separately about each material incriminating circumstances, which is intended to be used against him. In other words, each material incriminating circumstance should be put in a simple short question separately so that the accused is able to understand and reply the same. It may be pointed out that the examination of the accused is not any empty formality." The Division Bench has observed that for the mistake committed by the trial Court in not following the procedural law, the Appellate Court should not allow failure of justice. The Court has to see that there is a fair trial not only with reference to the accused, but also with reference to the prosecution and more important with reference to the society and the victim. 11. The Court has to see that there is a fair trial not only with reference to the accused, but also with reference to the prosecution and more important with reference to the society and the victim. 11. Shri Daga, the learned Counsel has also relied on another Division Bench judgment of this Court in (Raju S/o Sureshsingh Thakur v. State of Maharashtra)3, reported in 2001 All.M.R. (Cri.) 2300, wherein this Court has considered the basic principles which are required to be observed in examining the accused under this section which are as follows : "(i) The Court must place before the accused the facts and circumstances appearing against him in order to furnish him an opportunity of showing his innocence by offering his explanation in these facts and circumstances; (ii) The questions must be fair and couched in a form and language which even an ignorant or illiterate person, or one who falters and is confused, will be able to appreciate and understand; (iii) Misleading questions should not be asked; (iv) The accused must be questioned separately about each material circumstances, which is intended to be used against him, for example, the fact that he had absconded, which he could have explained." 12. In our view, taking into consideration, the statement which is recorded under section 313 Cri.P.C. and the questions which are put to him by the trial Court, no reasonable opportunity has been offered to the accused and the incriminating circumstances have not been put to him. We, therefore, accept the request made by learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant/accused, as we are satisfied that the manner in which the trial Court had examined the appellant/accused under section 313 of Cri.P.C. has caussed him in prejudice. Therefore, we quash and set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant/accused by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in his judgment and order and remand the matter to the trial Court for the thorough consideration from the stage of examining the appellant/accused under section 313 of the Code. 13. We, direct the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur to take up the trial of the appellant/accused, frame questions under section 313 of the Code, examine the appellant/accused as required and pronounce its judgment in the case on merits and in accordance with law. 13. We, direct the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur to take up the trial of the appellant/accused, frame questions under section 313 of the Code, examine the appellant/accused as required and pronounce its judgment in the case on merits and in accordance with law. We further direct that the Sessions Court should complete this process within a period of two months from the date from which this order is communicated to him. It is further clarified that the trial Court will permit the accused to give defence evidence, if he desires to do so. With these observations, the appeal is allowed on the aforesaid terms. The matter is remand back to the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur. Appeal allowed. -----