Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1217 (GAU)

Mongchajai Mog v. State of Tripura

2012-10-18

S.C.DAS, U.B.SAHA

body2012
JUDGMENT U.B. Saha, J. 1. The instant appeal is preferred by the appellant Sri Mongchajai Mog against the judgment dated 02.04.2008 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Belonia, South Tripura in ST 7 (ST/B) 2008 wherein the appellant was convicted under Section 32 IPC and sentence to suffer RJ for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only), i.e. to payment of fine money to suffer further SI for six months. Heard Mr. H.K. Bhowmik, learned legal aid counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Addl. PP. for the State respondents. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 07.07.2007 at about 12 O'clock at night accused Mongchajai Mog stabbed his wife deceased Ankra Mog with a dagger on the vital part of her body in their own house and leaving her in a seriously injured condition he fled away. The said incident was witnessed by their son P.W. 10 who was sleeping in the house. Thereafter, P.W. 10 came to the house of his Aunty P.W. 2 (Sister of his mother) and informed about the said incident and then P.W. 2 along with their relatives went to the house of the appellant and took her sister, who was thereafter shifted to Julaibari Hospital and thereafter from Julaibari Hospital to Udaipur Hospital. In Udaipur Hospital, the deceased Ankra Mog succumbed to the injuries. On 08.07.2007 P.W. 2, Mrachau Mog sister of the deceased submitted written Ejahar with the Baikhora PS through the O/C. Debdaru Out Post Santirbajar, South Tripura. On receipt of the said Ejahar/FIR the Officer in Charge Baikhora P.S. registered a case and entrusted the same to SI Mahitosh Majumdar P.W. 14 for investigation. Accordingly, P.W. 14, SI of police investigated the case and finally after collecting evidence submitted charge sheet against the accused-appellant Mongchajai Mog under Section 302 IPC. 3. On receipt of the charge sheet, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st. Class, Belonia, South Tripura took cognizance of the offence under Section 302 IPC and thereafter following the necessary procedure committed the case before the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Belonia, South Tripura for trial being the case was sessions triable. 4. The learned Trial Court framed charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused-appellant to which the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. Sessions Judge, Belonia, South Tripura for trial being the case was sessions triable. 4. The learned Trial Court framed charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused-appellant to which the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. To prove the charge the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses including the official witnesses but the case of the defence was of total denial. On completion of the examination of the prosecution witnesses the learned Addl. Session Judge, Belonia examined the accused-appellant under Section 313 of the Code and upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the evidence on record passed the impugned judgment convicting the accused-appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer RI for life with fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine money to suffer SI for further six months. 5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence the accused-appellant preferred the present appeal. 6. Mr. Bhowmik, learned legal aid counsel appearing for the accused-appellant would contend that even if for argument sake it is accepted that there are materials against the accused-appellant then also the entire trial is vitiated for improper examination of the accused-appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, Code) by the trial Court as the learned trial Court while examining the accused-appellant put compound questions in a mechanical fashion though the law prescribes that questions should be put to an accused in the simplest way so that he can understand what incriminating evidence is available against him which he has to meet up. 7. He further submits that it would be evident from the cross of P.W. 10 that he could not see the quarrel of his parents prior to the alleged incident as he was sleeping at that time and not only that, he has also not seen his father accused-appellant when he woke up from sleep. Thus, the learned trial Court committed error convicting the accused-appellant on the basis of the evidence of said alleged solitary eye witness, who was also a minor in age at the time of alleged incident. Placing the evidence of P.W. 10, the sole eye witness, he also pointed out that the said witness though put his signature in Bengali but he has narrated the story of the incident before the trial Court in Mog language. Placing the evidence of P.W. 10, the sole eye witness, he also pointed out that the said witness though put his signature in Bengali but he has narrated the story of the incident before the trial Court in Mog language. Hence, for mere putting signature in the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code it cannot be said that the accused-appellant understood the questions put to him regarding the incriminating materials available against him interpreting in Bengali language when admittedly the accused-appellant belongs to Mog community. Thus, the purpose of examination of the accused-appellant under Section 313 of the Code is wholly frustrated for which itself the trial is also vitiated and the impugned judgment convicting the accused appellant is liable to be set aside and consequent thereto the accused-appellant is entitled to be acquitted. 8. He further submits that as the incriminating evidence was put to the accused-appellant in Bengali language interpreted by the trial Judge, the accused-appellant did not get proper opportunity to answer the same as he is not fully aware about the Bengali language. The learned trial Judge ought to have put the incriminating evidence in the language of the accused-appellant which he understands or to interpret the same in his language so that he can get an opportunity to offer his own explanation regarding the accusation, particularly when, the object of Section 313 of the Code is enacted by the legislature for providing the benefit to the accused and if such benefit is not provided as required under the provisions of Code then that would be denial of the principle of natural justice, he contended. 9. In support of his aforesaid contention, he placed reliance on a decision in Dulal Ch. Baidya vs. State of Tripura, 2009 CRI. L.J. 2365 rendered by one of us (Saha J) and the decision in SH. Lalsangzuala vs. State of Mizoram, 2011 (1) GLT 47 wherein a Division Bench this Court considering the decision of Hate Singh Bhagat Singh vs. State of Madhya Bharat, AIR 1953 SC 468 which was subsequently followed by the Apex Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622 and the decision of the Apex Court in Basavaraj R. Patil & other vs. State of Karnataka & other, reported in 2000 Cri. L.J. 4604, set aside the order of conviction and remitted the matter to the trial Court for disposal afresh after examining the accused's appellant under Section 313 of the Code asking the trial Court to explain all the incriminating circumstances as available against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and providing him opportunity to adduce evidence, if he wishes, in his defence. 10. He further contended that questions were put to the accused-appellant in a composite form which even cannot be understood and answered by a prudent person, far to the accused-appellant who is a rustic villager and belongs to a tribal community. Thus, it would be proper, if not wholly acquit the accused-appellant from the charges leveled against him, to remit the case to the trial Court like the case of Sh. Lalsangzuala (supra). In support of his aforesaid contention, he also placed reliance on a decision of another Division Bench of this Court in Suraj Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of Meghalaya, 2010 (3) GLT 225 wherein the Division Bench considering the entire facts and circumstances, particularly the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code remitted back the matter to the trial Court with a direction that the trial Court in accordance with Section 313 of the Code and the spirit underlying, shall put all the circumstances to the accused and would elucidate his explanation and the learned trial Judge shall decide the matter afresh. 11. He again contended that the trial Courts are recording statement under Section 313 of the Code in a stereo type manner and not putting the incriminating materials by way of direct question. Rather putting the evidence of so many witnesses by a single question which is deprecated by the Apex Court as well as by this Court on so many occasions. Thus, it would also be proper for this Court to direct the trial Court to give more attention while examining the accused under Section 313 of the Code as the said stage is one of the most important stages in a criminal trial as only in that stage the accused can get an opportunity to defend his case. In support of his aforesaid contention he placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Sajjan Sharma vs. State of Bihar, 2011 CRI. In support of his aforesaid contention he placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Sajjan Sharma vs. State of Bihar, 2011 CRI. L.J. 1169, particularly paragraph 15 wherein the Apex Court noted inter alia, that: We are constrained to say that this is not an isolated case but it is almost a stereotype. It is our experience that in criminal trials in Bihar no proper attention is paid to the framing of charges and the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the two very important stages in a criminal trial. The framing of the charge and the examination of the accused are mostly done in the most unmindful and mechanical manner. We wish that the Patna High Court should take note of the neglectful way in which some of the Courts in the State appear to be conducting trials of serious offences and take appropriate corrective steps. 12. At the end of his submission, Mr. Bhowmik while reminding this Court regarding the primary purpose of Section 313 of the Code placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Sanatan Naskar & another vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 8 SCC 249 and would contend that the primary purpose of Section 313 of the Code is only to establish a direct dialogue between the Court and the accused and to put every incriminating piece of evidence to the accused and grant him an opportunity to answer and explain them. In the instant case, it would be evident from the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code that such direct dialogue between the Court and the accused is totally absent. Rather, the learned trial Court put the incriminating piece of evidence to the accused in a mechanical manner by way of putting questions clubbing the evidence of more than one witness though it is the primary duty of the trial Court to put questions Separately, in regard to each material circumstance appearing against the accused. 13. Mr. Debnath, learned Addl. PP while supporting the impugned judgment convicting the accused appellant and resisting the contention of Mr. Bhowmik would contend that in the instant case the learned trial Judge has put all the incriminating circumstances to the accused-appellant and in no way the accused-appellant was prejudiced for putting questions clubbing the evidence of witnesses. 13. Mr. Debnath, learned Addl. PP while supporting the impugned judgment convicting the accused appellant and resisting the contention of Mr. Bhowmik would contend that in the instant case the learned trial Judge has put all the incriminating circumstances to the accused-appellant and in no way the accused-appellant was prejudiced for putting questions clubbing the evidence of witnesses. He also contended that examination is not inadequate and even so, every omission to put any incriminating circumstance would not vitiate the trial as a whole unless a serious prejudice is cause to the accused-appellant. 14. In support of his aforesaid contention he has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Paramjeet Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand, 2011 CRI. L.J. 663 wherein the Apex Court taking note of its earlier decision noted that: If any appellate Court or revisional Court comes across the fact that the trial Court had not put any question to an accused, even if it is of a vital nature, such an omission alone should not result in the setting aside of the conviction and sentence as an inevitable consequence. An inadequate examination cannot be presumed to have caused prejudice. Every error or omission in compliance of the provisions of Section 313 Cr. P.C. does not necessarily vitiate trial Such errors fall within category of curable irregularities and the question as to whether the trial is vitiated, in each case depends upon the degree of error and upon whether prejudice has been or is likely to have been caused to accused. The Apex Court while expressing its aforesaid views also took note of Washim Khan & another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1956 SC 400 , Bhoor Singh & another vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1974 SC 1256 , Labhchand Dhanpat Singh Jain vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1975 SC 182 , State of Punjab vs. Naib Din, AIR 2001 SC 3955 and Parsuram Pandey & other vs. State of Bihar, (2004) 13 SCC 189 . 15. In Paramjeet Singh (supra) the Apex Court also noted that the provisions of Section 313 of the Code makes it obligatory for the Court to question the accused on the evidence and circumstances against him so as to offer the accused an opportunity to explain the same. 15. In Paramjeet Singh (supra) the Apex Court also noted that the provisions of Section 313 of the Code makes it obligatory for the Court to question the accused on the evidence and circumstances against him so as to offer the accused an opportunity to explain the same. But, it would not be enough for the accused to show that he has not been questioned or examined on a particular circumstance, instead he must show that such non-examination has actually and materially prejudiced him and consequently resulted in the failure of justice. In other words, in the event of an inadvertent omission, on the part of the Court to question the accused on any incriminating circumstance cannot ipso facto vitiate the trial unless it is shown that some material prejudice was cause to the accused by the omission of the Court. 16. He also submits that in the instant case neither any prejudice was caused to the accused-appellant nor he has shown that any prejudice was caused to him. Thus it would not be proper for this Court to remit the matter back to the trial Court for deciding the case afresh. 17. He further contended that the evidence of Mongchajai Mog, P.W. 10, who is the son of, the deceased and accused and eye witness of stabbing to the deceased by he accused with a dagger is enough to convict the accused appellant and not only that, from the evidence of P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and P.W. 6, to whom the deceased Ankra Mog disclosed that her husband hit her with a dagger and to whom P.W. 10 also disclosed the incident that itself is enough for affirming the impugned judgment and maintain the order of conviction and sentence. 18. As the main attack of learned legal aid counsel, Mr. Bhowmik was regarding the improper and inadequate examination of the accused appellant under Section 313 of the Code by the learned Trial Court, it would be proper for us to reproduce the provisions of Section 313 of the Code. Accordingly, the same is reproduced herein under:- 313. Power to examine the accused. Bhowmik was regarding the improper and inadequate examination of the accused appellant under Section 313 of the Code by the learned Trial Court, it would be proper for us to reproduce the provisions of Section 313 of the Code. Accordingly, the same is reproduced herein under:- 313. Power to examine the accused. (1) In every inquiry or trial, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain 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 the 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 the Section. 19. Now let us see how and in what manner the question was put to the accused regarding incriminating materials against him Out of five questions put to the accused-appellant by the trial Judge under Section 313 of the Code, three questions and their answers are reproduced herein under for better appreciation. Question 1 – Have you heard the evidence recorded in the Open Court? Answer – Yes. Question 2 – P.W. 1 Ranjan Chakraborty, Head-Constable stated that you appeared before the Kalshi post and stated that you had hit your wife by dagger and now wants to surrender. Question 1 – Have you heard the evidence recorded in the Open Court? Answer – Yes. Question 2 – P.W. 1 Ranjan Chakraborty, Head-Constable stated that you appeared before the Kalshi post and stated that you had hit your wife by dagger and now wants to surrender. P.W. 2 Smt. Mrachau Mog stated that 8/9 months back, in the night time, your son Mongchajai Mog called her and told that your wife had called her, So, went out with his nephew and saw her sister lying with bleeding injury. Her body was soaked with blood. She was conscious and she told her that her husband, you had stabbed her three times by a dagger on her chest. They took her to Jolaibari PHC and then to T.S. Hospital, Udaipur where she died. P.W. 3 Chathujai Mog stated that on 8.7.07 at 7 a.m. Mrachu Mog went to their house and informed that her sister Angkra Mog had been murdered by her husband. On her request, he wrote the ejahar. He also went to your house. You were absent and saw your wife with bleeding injury and she told that you had stabbed her on her chest and abdomen. P.W. 4 Kangla Mog staged that he and his wife went to your house and saw your wife with bleeding injury. She told that you had stabbed her and fled away. Then they took your wife to Jolaibari PHC. P.W. 5 Uggya Mog stated that he heard the hue and cry, went there and saw Angkra lying with bleeding injury. Her body was soaked with blood. What is your explanation in regard to this evidence given by prosecution witnesses? Answer – No it is false. Question 3 – P.W. 6 Smt. Chainga Mog stated that 8/9 months back at about 12 p.m. Mrachu Mog came to their house and requested to go to their house. On the way, they met Angkra with injury being shifted to hospital. Angkra with injury told him that her husband i.e. you had hit her by dagger. On the next day, Angkra succumbed to the injuries. P.W. 7 Chaila Mog stated that on his asking, Kangla told him that the husband of Angkra had stabbed Angkra and fled away. He went to the house of Angkra and saw Angkra with bleeding injury. Angkra with injury told him that her husband i.e. you had hit her by dagger. On the next day, Angkra succumbed to the injuries. P.W. 7 Chaila Mog stated that on his asking, Kangla told him that the husband of Angkra had stabbed Angkra and fled away. He went to the house of Angkra and saw Angkra with bleeding injury. She was semi conscious, sometime loosing her sense and Angkra told not to take her to anywhere as it was not possible to save her. P.W.8 Chathujai Mog stated that 7 months back, Saturday night Mrachu Mog called him. He went to the house of Angkrai and saw that she had been stabbed on the abdomen. Wengsai told him that his father had stabbed his mother by dagger and in the Udaipur Hospital she succumbed to the injuries. P.W. 9 Mouchau Mog stated that Afuya Mog informed him that he went to your house and saw your wife with bleeding injury. Calling him mama, mama she told him that her husband had stabbed her three times and went out. They arranged the vehicle and shifted her to the hospital. P.W. 10 Wengsai Mog stated that on 7.7.07 he got up from the sleep and saw his father to go out from the room quickly. He heard the cry of his mother and saw her with bleeding injury. His mother told him to inform Mrachu Mog, his baroma. His mother told him that she was going to the and also that your father had stabbed her three times. P.W. 11 Prantosh Das stated that he carried Angkra to the Jolaibari PHC by his vehicle. P.W. 12 Biplab Roy prepared the surathal report. P.W. 13 Haradhan Bal stated that Havildar of Kalshi camp informed him about the confession made by you. P.W. 14 Mahitosh Majumdar investigated the case and submitted chargesheet against you under Section 302 of I.P.C. P.W. 15 Dr. Debashish Pal conducted the P.M. examination of Angkra Mog and on examination he found 2 Nos. of stab injury in the abdomen and he opined that death was caused due to ante-mortem abdominal injury. What is your explanation in regard to this evidence given by prosecution witnesses? Answer – No it is false. 20. The above reproduction of the examination under Section 313 Cr. of stab injury in the abdomen and he opined that death was caused due to ante-mortem abdominal injury. What is your explanation in regard to this evidence given by prosecution witnesses? Answer – No it is false. 20. The above reproduction of the examination under Section 313 Cr. P.C. demonstrates how the questions were put to the accused-appellant by the trial Court which makes it clear that the learned trial Court failed to understand the purpose of examining the accused under Section 313 of the Code. In various decisions the Apex Court discussed regarding the object of recording of statement of the accused under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code and noted that the object is to give an opportunity to the accused to explain the circumstances appearing against him as well as to put forward his defence if the accused so desires (See Ramnaresh & other vs. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2012 SCW 1917, Bakhshish Singh Dhaliwal vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1967 SC 752 ). 21. In S. Harnam Singh vs. State (Delhi Admit) reported in AIR 1976 SC 2140 : 1976 Cri. L.J. 913 the Apex Court while discussing regarding Section 342 (old) at present Section 313 of the Code, noted that the said provision: Casts a duty on the Court to put, at any enquiry or trial, questions to the accused for the purpose of enabling him to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. It follows as a necessary corollary therefrom that each material circumstance appearing in evidence against the accused is required to be put to him specifically, distinctly and separately. Failure to do so amounts to a serious irregularity vitiating the trial if it is shown to have prejudiced the accused. 22. The aforesaid decision of the Apex Court in S. Harnam Singh (supra) was also considered in its subsequent decisions, including the decision in Paramjeet Singh (supra) as relied upon by Mr. Debnath. The case of S. Harnam Singh (supra) was also followed by the Orissa High Court in Sudhakar Sarangi vs. State, 1992 Cri. L.J. 1866) wherein it is; held that: The object of Section 313 of the Code is to establish a direct dialogue between the Court and the accused. Debnath. The case of S. Harnam Singh (supra) was also followed by the Orissa High Court in Sudhakar Sarangi vs. State, 1992 Cri. L.J. 1866) wherein it is; held that: The object of Section 313 of the Code is to establish a direct dialogue between the Court and the accused. If a point in the evidence is important against the accused, and the conviction is intended to be based upon it, it is right and proper that the accused should be questioned about the matter and be given an opportunity of explaining it. Where no specific question has been put by the trial Court on an inculpatory material in the prosecution evidence, it would vitiate the trial. Of course, all these are subject to rider whether they have caused miscarriage of justice or prejudice. 23. In Hate Singh Bhagat Singh (supra) the Apex Court while considering the purpose of Section 342 which is at present 313 of the Code noted that the statement of the accused recorded by the Committing Magistrate and the Sessions Judge are intended in India to take the place of what in England and in America he would be free to state in his own way in the witness-box. They have to be received in evidence and treated as evidence and be duly considered at the trial. 24. In Jai Dev vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 612 Gajendragadkar, J. (as he then was) speaking for a three-Judge Bench has focused on the ultimate test in determining whether the provision has been fairly complied with. He observed thus: The ultimate test in determining whether or not the accused has been fairly examined under Section 342 would be to inquire whether, having regard to all the questions put to him, he did get an opportunity to say what he wanted to say in respect of prosecution case against him. If it appears that the examination of the accused person was defective and thereby a prejudice has been caused to him, that would no doubt be a serious infirmity. 25. In Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade vs. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 , the Apex Court in para 16 observed as follows:- 16. It is trite law, nevertheless fundamental, that the prisoner's attention should be drawn to every inculpatory material so as to enable him to explain it. 25. In Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade vs. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 , the Apex Court in para 16 observed as follows:- 16. It is trite law, nevertheless fundamental, that the prisoner's attention should be drawn to every inculpatory material so as to enable him to explain it. This is the basis fairness of a criminal trial and failures in this area may gravely imperil the validity of the trial itself, if consequential miscarriage of justice has flowed. However, where such an omission has occurred it does not ipso facto vitiate the proceedings and prejudice occasioned by such defect must be established by the accused. In the event of evidentiary material not being put to the accused, the Court must ordinarily eschew such material from consideration. It is also open to the appellate Court to call upon the counsel for the accused to show what explanation the accused has as regards the circumstances established against him but not put to him and if the accused is unable to offer the appellate Court any plausible or reasonable explanation of such circumstances, the Court may assume that no acceptable answer exists and that even if the accused had been questioned at the proper time in the trial Court he would not have been able to furnish any good ground to get out of the circumstances on which the trial Court had relied for its conviction. 26. Again in Basavaraj R. Patil (supra) the Apex Court discussed about the aim and object of Section 313 of the Code and stated, inter alia, that: Section 313 Cr. P.C. is mainly intended to benefit the accused and as its corollary to benefit the Court in reaching the final conclusion. The provision is not intended to nail him to any position, but to comply with the most salutary principle of natural justice enshrined in the maxim audi alteram partem. The word may in clause (a) of sub-section (1) in Section 313 of the Code indicates, without any doubt, that even if the Court does not put any question under that clause the accused cannot raise any grievance of it. But if the Court fails to put the needed question under clause (b) of the sub-section it would result in a handicap to the accused and he can legitimately claim that no evidence, without affording him the opportunity to explain, can be used against him. But if the Court fails to put the needed question under clause (b) of the sub-section it would result in a handicap to the accused and he can legitimately claim that no evidence, without affording him the opportunity to explain, can be used against him. It is now well settled that a circumstances about which the accused was not asked to explain cannot be used against him. 27. In Balai Natta vs. State of Tripura 2009 (5) GLT 828, one of us (Saha J) while considering the appeal of the appellant and examining the judgment impugned therein, has found that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, West Tripura though put question to the accused person as well as signed the statements, but did not record the statements of the accused which proves that the learned trial Court was not at all serious while recording the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. or not thoroughly aware how a statement under Section 313, Cr. P.C. has to be recorded and what is the responsibility of a Court in a criminal trial. Unless the Court places itself in the place of justice seeker, it cannot discharge its duties cast upon it by the law makers. The trial Court should be very careful and cautious while examining an accused Section 313, Cr. P.C. as by this provision, the Legislature provided an opportunity to an accused for receiving natural justice from the Court. 28. Again in the case of Prabhat Marak & another vs. State of Tripura, 2011 CRI. L.J. 1844 one of us (Saha J) observed that accused should be examined separately in regard to material circumstances appearing against him and has also expressed his unhappiness regarding the functioning of the trial Court as the trial Court has failed to consider the statutory provisions by which the legislature provided an opportunity to an accused to answer regarding the incriminating materials against him brought by the prosecution witnesses and recorded by the Court which would be used against him. In the said judgment it is further noted that: The narration of evidence jointly in a mechanical fashion would not sub-serve the requirement that the question should be put in the language of accused but according to this Court, question should be put to an accused in his own language so that he can understand what the evidence is available against him and if the question is put by the Court in other language than the language understood by the accused, in that case, the Court should explain the evidence incriminating him with the alleged offence. 29. We have given our anxious consideration to the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and also to the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code. According to us, the case of Paramjeet Singh (supra) as relied upon by Mr. Debnath is distinguishable as in that case the Apex Court discussed regarding omission to put any incriminating circumstance to the accused and held that it would not be enough for the accused to show that he has not been examined or questioned on a particular circumstance, instead he must show that such non-examination has actually and materially prejudiced him and has resulted in the failure of justice. In the instant case, there is nothing regarding omission to put any question, rather the accused-appellant not only raised the question regarding the putting of questions to him by way of clubbing/combining the evidence of so many witnesses but also established that he has been prejudiced for such type of questions. Thus, the judgment of Paramjeet Singh (supra) in no way helps the prosecution. Rather, according to us the submission of Mr. Bhowmik has some legal force, particularly examination of accused in his own language. 30. In the instant case, it appears from the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code that the learned trial Court not only put question combining the evidence of so many witnesses but also did not mention in anywhere of the statement that it has asked the accused-appellant regarding his understanding so far Bengali language is concerned as admittedly the accused-appellant belongs to MOG community (tribal community) far to establish a direct dialogue between the Court and the accused as observed by the Orissa High Court in Sudhakar Sarangi (supra) and subsequently by the Apex Court in Sanatan Naskar & another (supra). 31. 31. Mere putting signature in Bengali on the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code does not ipso facto prove that the accused-appellant is well conversant regarding Bengali language or even he has mere understanding of the said language. More so, when it appears from the evidence of P.W. 10, son of the accused-appellant, that though he put his signature on the statement under Section 313 of the Code in Bengali but he narrated the story in the Court in his own language, i.e. Mog language as he was not well conversant regarding Bengali language and the questions were put to him were also interpreted in Mog language which is totally absent in case of the accused-appellant. A person may in any way learn how to write his name in a language but may not be able to speak and understand that language, thus, it would be proper for the trial Court to ask an accused as to whether he is in a position to speak and understand the language in which the questions are put to him. Unless the same is asked it can be said that the accused was denied his right to answer the question put to him and thus was prejudiced. To understand the aforesaid position it would be proper to give an illustration, thus:- "X" is a non-English speaking person who learnt how to write his name in the English language but he does not know how to speak in English and also is not in a position to understand the English language. In that case, if he is put questions by the trial Court "Y" in any other language interpreting the same in English language, that also would not help "X" to understand the questions put to him for answering the same, and such deprivation of answering the questions is nothing but cause prejudice to the person concerned. 32. As we are of the opinion that the trial Court failed to understand the purpose of the object of Section 313 of the Code as noted by the Apex Court as well as by this Court in various decisions, as stated supra, which were referred to by Mr. Bhowmik, we do not think that we require to enter into the merits of the case particularly the evidence of witnesses as urged by Mr. Bhowmik, we do not think that we require to enter into the merits of the case particularly the evidence of witnesses as urged by Mr. Debnath, when the statement of the accused-appellant recorded under Section 313 of the Code is obviously prejudicial to his interest. But at the same time we are also of the view that for such lapses of the trial Court the accused-appellant is not entitled to be fully acquitted. At best, it would be proper on our part to provide him a further opportunity to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence by way of examination under Section 313 of the Code afresh. 33. Accordingly, the conviction recorded and the sentence awarded by the trial Court is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the learned trial Court with a direction that the trial Court should examine the accused-appellant afresh under Section 313 of the Code in the language understandable to him, as simply as possible, if necessary providing him an interpreter so that the accused-appellant does not feel that the Court is not providing him natural justice which he is entitled to, as per law. The learned trial Court should also provide the accused-appellant an opportunity to enter into defence, appropriate opportunity to lead evidence, if he so desires and thereafter parties would be heard in accordance with law. 34. The appeal is partly allowed to the extent as indicated above. The statements of the accused recorded earlier under Section 313 of the Code are also quashed. In various cases as we are witnessing that some of the learned trial Courts are not examining the accused under Section 313 of the Code in its true spirit and as a result the accused is deprived from placing his case, it would be proper on our part to direct the Registry to circulate this judgment to all the Courts below so that in future they follow the law in its true spirit. Ordered accordingly.