JUDGMENT MIHIR KUMAR JHA This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 18.7.1989 passed by the 5th Addl. Sessions Judge, Siwan in S.Tr. No. 11 of 1987, whereby and whereunder the five appellants, namely, Jitan Ri, Rabindra Rai, Kabindra Rai, Chandeshwar Rai and Rajeshwar Rai have been convicted under sections 302/149 and Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life as well as R.I. for one year respectively though both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. It has to be noted at this place itself that the trial court had also convicted co-accused Hira Rai and co-accused Ekbal Rai for offence under sections 302 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code sentencing them to undergo R.I. for life and also R.I. for two years but their appeal on account of their death during the pendency of this appeal has stood abated as recorded in the order of this Court dated 14.9.2011. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, as per First Information Report recorded at the instance of Suresh Singh (P.W.6) on 5.9.1986 at 2.30 P.M. is that on the same day at about 11 A.M. in the morning while he along with his brother Laxman Singh (deceased) were weeding the crops of paddy in the southern western flank of his house, his agnates Hira Rai (since dead) armed with farsa, Ekbal Rai (since dead) armed with farsa, and all these five appellants, namely, Jitan Ri, Rabindra Rai, Kabindra Rai, Chandeshwar Rai and Rajeshwar Rai, armed with lathi had arrived over there and having abused them it was Ekbal Rai who had given the first farsa blow over his brother Laxman Singh (deceased) as a result where Laxman Singh had suffered injury and cried in pain. It is further alleged by the informant that thereafter co-accused Hira Rai (since dead), had also caused a farsa blow to him and his right knee got injured and he too had fallen down and started crying. It is also alleged that Hira Rai (since dead) thereafter had given another farsa blow on the person of the informant causing injury in his right thigh. It is also alleged that Hira Rai (since dead) thereafter had given another farsa blow on the person of the informant causing injury in his right thigh. The informant has also stated that Hira Rai (since dead) thereafter had also caused another injury on his brother Laxman Singh by farsa, as a result whereof both brothers had fallen down separately but even thereafter all the accused persons including these appellants kept on assaulting them indiscriminately by their respective weapons i.e. farsa and lathi. 4. The informant has claimed that on hulla raised by them, Bhulotan Rai (not examined), Raghunath Rai (not examined), Kapoor Chand Rai (P.W.2) and Baleshwar Rai (not examined) had arrived at the place of occurrence and had seen the occurrence. The informant has also stated that having caused injury on both Laxman Singh and him Hira Rai had said that both of them have been done to death and after this they had also left the place of occurrence. In the F.I.R. the informant had also claimed that as his brother having several injuries on his person had died at the spot, he could not bring the dead body to the police station and had left it in the field while starting for the Police Station in an injured condition alongwith his villager Haribansh Raut for lodging the case. The motive for the said occurrence in the F.I.R. itself has been stated to be a old dispute relating to a field which was in the name of his mother Deshapati which was in their cultivating possession but was sought to be forcibly occupied by the appellants and others by dispossessing them and on account of this alone they were assaulted by the accused persons including the appellants by means of farsa and lathi. 5. On the basis of the aforementioned information given by the informant, to which Kapoor Chand Rai (P.W.2) was the attesting witness, the police case Bhagwanpur P.S.Case No. 0060/1986 was instituted wherein the police after completing investigation had submitted a charge sheet against all the seven accused persons including these appellants and Hira Rai and Ekbal Rai. In the consequential trial the court below by the impugned judgment had convicted and sentenced all seven of them as in the manner indicated above. 6. Mr. Bamdeo Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, has assailed the impugned judgment on a number of grounds. In the consequential trial the court below by the impugned judgment had convicted and sentenced all seven of them as in the manner indicated above. 6. Mr. Bamdeo Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, has assailed the impugned judgment on a number of grounds. Firstly, he had stated that the eye witnesses who had sought to support the prosecution case could not establish either the place of occurrence or the manner of occurrence and in this regard he had referred to the objective finding of the Investigating Officer showing that even though the place of occurrence was said to be the field itself but the I.O. did not find any trace of such occurrence emanating from the assault on two persons. 7. He had also submitted that the prosecution case in absence of any independent witness would also not inspire confidence, especially when four of such independent witnesses named by the informant in the First Information Report namely Bhoultan, Raghunandan, Baleshwar and Awdhesh were not examined. In this regard he has also submitted that mere filing of an application of the prosecution that these independent witnesses were gained over or had gone into the camp of defence was not sufficient, inasmuch as they were still required to be produced for their cross-examination by the defence. 8. He has also highlighted on the postmortem report for explaining that in absence of definite opinion of the doctor as with regard to which of the injury had caused the death of Laxman, the charge under section 302 I.P.C. was itself not proved and thus appellants could also not be convicted for offence under sections 302/149 I.P.C. 9. Relying on the age of Rabindra Rai, Kabindra Rai and Rajeshwar Rai as shown in the judgment and in the order of this Court for holding an enquiry as with regard to their claim of being juvenile he has submitted that at least the conviction of those three persons cannot be sustained. 10. Mr. Relying on the age of Rabindra Rai, Kabindra Rai and Rajeshwar Rai as shown in the judgment and in the order of this Court for holding an enquiry as with regard to their claim of being juvenile he has submitted that at least the conviction of those three persons cannot be sustained. 10. Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, has submitted that so far these appellants are concerned, they being only a member of unlawful assembly whose common object with to do away with the life of Laxman Singh the deceased, their conviction and sentence would need no interference especially when there is a consistent evidence of their not only being members of unlawful assembly but also indulging in assault over the deceased by means of lathi in their hands. 11. He has also explained that there is no discrepancy in the medical evidence, inasmuch as the doctor had recorded that injury nos. 6 and 7 by themselves were sufficient to cause death. 12. As with regard to non-examination of the independent witnesses he has sought to explain that first of all when there were other eye witnesses to support the occurrence their non-examination alone would not vitiate the finding recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgment and the resultant conviction and sentence cannot be interfered only on account of non-examination of the independent witnesses. 13. He has also explained that the place of occurrence in the objective finding of the Investigating Officer stands fully corroborated from the oral evidence of P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.6. In this regard he has laid stress on the aspect that the informant was an injured eye witness whose injuries were also confirmed by the doctor and therefore, there were sufficient evidence for maintaining the conviction and sentence of the appellants. 14. Before we would analyze the aforementioned submission it would be necessary for us to take into account that the prosecution in all has examined 12 witnesses out of whom P.W.1 Rameshwar Singh, P.W.10 Jai Kishore Singh, P.W.11 Jawaharlal Sah and P.W.12 Gautam Rai are the formal witnesses. The prosecution has also tendered P.W.7 Mahabir Rai. The rest of the witnesses P.W.5 Shanti Devi is a hearsay witness which leaves the prosecution with three eye witnesses, namely, P.W.2 Kapoor Chand Rai, P.W.4 Shashi Kant Kumar and P.W.6 Suresh Singh, the informant. The prosecution has also tendered P.W.7 Mahabir Rai. The rest of the witnesses P.W.5 Shanti Devi is a hearsay witness which leaves the prosecution with three eye witnesses, namely, P.W.2 Kapoor Chand Rai, P.W.4 Shashi Kant Kumar and P.W.6 Suresh Singh, the informant. P.W.3 Dr. Anil Kumar had conducted the postmortem on the person of the deceased whereas P.W.8 Dr. R.P.Suman had examined the injury on the person of P.W.6, the informant. P.W.9 Hardan Baitha is the Investigating Officer. 15. The prosecution has also led documentary evidence by way of Ext.1 F.I.R., Ext.2 series signature of witnesses over the relevant documents, Ext.3 postmortem report, Ext.4 injury report, Ext.5 inquest report, Ext.6 seizure list, Ext.7 C.C. of deposition, Ext.8 Letter No. 895 dated 4.12.1986, Ext.9 Jamabandi Holding No. 824, Ext.10 rent receipt. 16. The defence also had led in this case two witnesses, namely, D.W.1 Sita Ram Singh and D.W.2 Vivekanand Chaudhary and had also led evidence by producing two documents, namely, Attendance Register Ext.A and the entire order sheet of Tanaza case Ext.B. 17. Additionally, Anil Kumar Upadhyay was examined as a sole court witness who had also exhibited Ext.1 signature of the Typist over the plaint of T.S.No. 167/1986, Ext.2 signature of an Advocate and the Ext.3 plaint. 18. In the light of the aforementioned defence evidence as also from the mode of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses coupled with the statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. the defence of the appellants seems to be one of false implication and denial of the occurrence in the manner alleged. It is also relevant to note here that the appellants have also taken a plea of alibi by claiming that none of them were present in the village when the occurrence had taken place, inasmuch as they were at other place. The defence in fact had also claimed right, title and possession over the land in question on which the occurrence had taken place. So as to rule the possibility of their being aggressors. 19. This Court on perusal of evidence on record is not at all impressed with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants as with regard to the prosecution case being belied on account of any inconsistent version of the two eyewitnesses. P.W.2 and P.W.6, inasmuch as they have supported the place and manner of occurrence with all preciseness in its entirety. P.W.2 and P.W.6, inasmuch as they have supported the place and manner of occurrence with all preciseness in its entirety. Nothing in fact could be taken away from them so as to discredit their status as an eye witness. The repeated criticism of Mr. Pandey that the place of occurrence suggested by them was not found by the Investigating Officer also does not impress us for a simple reason that mere absence of trampling mark in the field of the paddy crop would not discredit evidence of the Investigating Officer who had found the same place of occurrence as had been described by P.W.2 and P.W.6, namely, the paddy field to be the place of occurrence. 20. The Investigating Officer in this regard in his evidence in court has categorically stated that the place of occurrence was in village Bagairchhiya in the field of Suresh Singh (informant). He had also said that he had found copious blood near the dead body lying in the field. In fact he had also found the story of the informant of weeding of paddy crop to have been fully supported from the objective finding at the place of occurrence. Nothing has been taken away from the Investigating Officer as with regard to his description of place of occurrence which also gets corroborated from the inquest report (Ext.5) and the seizure list (Ext.6). Thus in presence of the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence we find no inconsistency in the prosecution case as with regard to the place of occurrence. 21. We are also not impressed with the criticism made by Mr. Pandey on the medical evidence wherein P.W.3, the doctor, had found the following antemortem injuries on the person of the deceased: “(i) Incised wound on left forearm on posto-lateral aspect 3”x1”x muscle deep. (ii) Incised wound on left thigh in interior aspect 2½”x1”x2”deep (iii) Swelling on right thigh 2”x1” (iv) Swelling on both shoulders 2½”x1½” (v) Swelling with bruise on left side of chest 1”x1/2” underlying rib was fractured. (vi) Swelling on left temporal region 1”x1/2” On dissection of skull sub-dural hematoma was found. Membrance were congested. (vii) Lacerated wound on scrotal region on lower part ¾”x1/4”x deep to scorted cavity, both testicles were congested. Hematoma was present.” 22. The doctor P.W.3 in his opinion had also recorded as follows: “2. Injury No. 1 and 2 caused by sharp cutting substance may be Pharsa. Membrance were congested. (vii) Lacerated wound on scrotal region on lower part ¾”x1/4”x deep to scorted cavity, both testicles were congested. Hematoma was present.” 22. The doctor P.W.3 in his opinion had also recorded as follows: “2. Injury No. 1 and 2 caused by sharp cutting substance may be Pharsa. Rest were caused by hard blunt substance may be lathi. 3. Rigor mortis was parietal in upper limbs. Rigor Mortis was complete on both the lower limbs. 4. Tooth and food matter was coming out of mouth. Stomach contained undigested food rice and dal etc. 5. In my opinion death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to above injuries. However, injury nos. 6 and 7 were sufficient enough to cause death. 6. Time since death 24 hours." 23. We have also found that this doctor P.W.3 was cross-examined at length but then there is nothing in them which would discredit his evidence as with regard to cause of death. The reliance placed on paragraph no.14 of cross-examination of the doctor reading as follows: “I have not mentioned which of the injury was responsible for causing death. in fact would not in any way adversely affect his opinion, inasmuch as he has clearly mentioned not only in his report but in his evidence in court in paragraph no.5, already quoted above, that injury Nos. 6 and 7 were sufficient enough to cause death. In that view of the matter, we find also nothing in the medical evidence to have weakened the prosecution case. 24. It is true that the prosecution in this case has examined P.W.4 as an eye witness who was not named in the F.I.R. Documentary evidence also would go to show the possibility of his presence in the school but then there is an entry in the Attendance Register „F? denoting 'fled away' which may turn him into a chance eye witness. In any event even if we discard the evidence of P.W.4 there is still sufficient material in the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.6 to support the prosecution version. 25. So far so good, but than there is definitely a disturbing feature in this case, inasmuch as in the F.I.R. apart from P.W.2, the informant had named three more eye witnesses, who were not related to the informant, namely, Bhulotan Rai, Raghunath Rai and Baleshwar Rai. 25. So far so good, but than there is definitely a disturbing feature in this case, inasmuch as in the F.I.R. apart from P.W.2, the informant had named three more eye witnesses, who were not related to the informant, namely, Bhulotan Rai, Raghunath Rai and Baleshwar Rai. The police in fact though made also them charge sheet witnesses alongwith one more person Awadhesh Rai. They, however, were not examined by the prosecution and despite the fact summons were issued to them by the court. Their non-examination was at the behest of the prosecution which had filed an application on 9.9.1987 reading as follows: “In the court of V A.D.J., Siwan S.T.No. 11/87 State vs. Hira Rai & ors. The humble petition on behalf of the prosecution in the above noted case is as follows: 1. That Bhulotan Rai, Raghunath Rai, Baleshwar Rai and Awadhesh Singh are named witnesses of the F.I.R. of Bhagwanpur P.S.Case No. 70/86 which is the basis of the present trial. The above noted witnesses have been purchared and influenced by the accused persons, because accused Hari Rai is previous convict of 302 I.P.C. and very rich man, so the named witnesses have gone in the camp of per accused persons. So the prosecution does not want to examine them.” 26. Learned counsel for the State very fairly had submitted that this Court could not have been the explanation for non-examination of four vital independent witnesses. We too have viewed the matter seriously because it was not for the prosecutor to select only the family members as witness for their deposition by leaving all the independent witnesses only on the ground that they have been grained over. Law is well settled that in such case they have to be produced in court and examined to discredit their evidence by declaring them hostile. This part of conduct of the prosecution, therefore, cannot be approved by us. 27. What, however, has made us to think seriously about the conviction and sentence of the appellants are the aspects which were not pressed by the learned counsel for the appellants. We, from the charge framed against these appellants, had found that the same was inherently defective. This part of conduct of the prosecution, therefore, cannot be approved by us. 27. What, however, has made us to think seriously about the conviction and sentence of the appellants are the aspects which were not pressed by the learned counsel for the appellants. We, from the charge framed against these appellants, had found that the same was inherently defective. From the charges framed against these appellants reading as follows: “You were a member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of common object merely to commit murder of Laxman Singh and caused death of said Laxman Singh.” it would be found that they were charged alongwith two main accused, namely, Hira Rai and Ekbal Rai all for under section 302 I.P.C. and thereafter all were subsequently charged for section 149 I.P.C. Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, however, reads as follows: “149. Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.- If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.” 28. From a bare perusal of Section 149 I.P.C. it would be clear that it has got no independent application and is solely dependent on the main offence. Here in this case when these appellants were not charged under section 302 separately and they were also clubbed together with the two other main accused, Hira Rai and Ekbal Rai their charge framed was inherently defective and also incurable in terms of section 464 and 465 Cr.P.C. This aspect of the matter stands well settled in a recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bhimanna vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2012)9 SCC 650 , wherein it was held as follows: “23. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the trial court committed a grave error in acquitting Yenkappa (A-1) and Suganna (A-3) for the offence of causing injuries to the deceased, in spite of there being sufficient evidence on record against them in this respect, simply for the reason that the police did not file a charge sheet in relation to such offences committed by them. Thus, the trial court should have altered/ added the requisite charge(s) and proceeded with the case in accordance with law. 24. In such a fact situation, a question also arises as to whether a conviction under any other provision, for which a charge has not been framed, is sustainable in law. The issue is no longer res integra and has been considered by the Court time and again. The accused must always be made aware of the case against them so as to enable them to understand the defence that they can lead. An accused can be convicted for an offence which is minor than the one he has been charged with, unless the accused satisfies the court that there has been a failure of justice by the non-framing of a charge under a particular penal provision, and some prejudice has been caused to the accused (vide Amar Singh vs. State of Haryana, reported in (1974)3 SCC 81 ). 25. Further, the defect must be so serious that it cannot be covered under Sections 464/465 Cr.P.C., which provide that, an order of sentence or conviction shall not be deemed to be invalid only on the ground that no charge was framed, or that there was some irregularity or omission or misjoinder of charges, unless the court comes to the conclusion that there was also, as a consequence, a failure of justice. In determining whether any error, omission or irregularity in framing the charges has led to a failure of justice, this Court must have regard to whether an objection could have been raised at an earlier stage during the proceedings or not. In determining whether any error, omission or irregularity in framing the charges has led to a failure of justice, this Court must have regard to whether an objection could have been raised at an earlier stage during the proceedings or not. While judging the question of prejudice or guilt, the court must bear in mind that every accused has a right to a fair trial, where he is aware of what he is being tried for and where the facts sought to be established against him, are explained to him fairly and clearly, and further, where he is given a full and fair chance to defend himself against the said charge(s). 26. This Court in Sanichar Sahni v. State of Bihar, reported in (2009)7 SCC 198 , while considering the issue placed reliance upon various judgments of this Court particularly on Topandas vs. State of Bombay, reported in AIR 1956 SC 33 , Willie (William) Slaney vs. State of M.P., reported in AIR 1956 SC 116 , Fakhruddin v. State of M.P., reported in AIR 1967 SC 1326 , State of A.P. v. Thakkidiram Reddy, reported in (1998)6 SCC 554 , Ramji Singh v. Sate of Bihar, reported in (2001)9 SCC 528 , and Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (2005)12 SCC 615 , and came to the following conclusion: (Sanichar Sahni case SCC p.204, para 27) “27. Therefore ... unless the convict is able to establish that defect in framing the charges has caused real prejudice to him and that he was not informed as to what was the real case against him and that he could not defend himself properly, no interference is required on mere technicalities. Conviction order in fact is to be tested on the touchstone of prejudice theory.” A similar view has been reiterated in Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P., reported in (2010)10 SCC 259 . 27. In Shamnsaheb M. Multtani v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2001)2 SCC 577 , this Court explained the meaning of the phrase “failure of justice” observing that the superior court must examine whether the issue raised regarding failure of justice is really a failure of justice or whether it is only a camouflage. 27. In Shamnsaheb M. Multtani v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2001)2 SCC 577 , this Court explained the meaning of the phrase “failure of justice” observing that the superior court must examine whether the issue raised regarding failure of justice is really a failure of justice or whether it is only a camouflage. The court must further examine whether the said aspect is of such a nature, that non-explanation of it has contributed to penalising an individual, and if the same is true then the court may say, that since he was not given an opportunity to explain such aspect, there was “failure of justice” on account of non-compliance with the principles of natural justice”. The expression “failure of justice” is an extremely pliable or facile an expression which can be made to fit into any situation of a case.” 29. In the light of the aforementioned well considered judgment of Apex Court as also reading of the charge we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that these appellants were not made aware of the actual charge against them and accordingly, stood deprived of an opportunity to defend themselves in a proper and reasonable manner during the period the trial was conducted against them. These infirmities in framing of the charge against these appellants have definitely prejudiced them to no uncertain end leading to complete failure of justice. 30. We have also found equally defective questionnaire under section 313 Cr.P.C. against all these seven accused persons which for the sake of clarity is quoted hereinbelow: “The examination of Hira Rai aged about 80 years taken before me Magistrate of the Class P.L. Kongari, 5th Addl. Sessions Judge, Siwan at on the 20 day 2 1988 in the Hindi language interpreted. Sessions Judge, Siwan at on the 20 day 2 1988 in the Hindi language interpreted. My name is Hira Rai My father?s name is Saryug Rai, My age is 85 years, I am by religion Hindu My nationality is Indian and I belong to Scheduled Cast/ Scheduled Tribe I am by occupation Girhasti my home is at Mauza Bagauchhia Police Station Bhagwanpur District Siwan ¼1½ iz0 & xokgksa dk dguk gS fd 5-9-89 dks vki Qjlk ls ySl gksdj vU; vfHk;qDrksa ds lkFk utk;t tekr cukdj y{e.k flag dks Qjlk ls ekjs ,oa ekj ls y{e.k flag dh ekSr gks xbZ ,oa lqjs”k dks Hkh Qjlk ls ekjsA m0- th ugha ;g >wB gSAges y{e.k flag ls izse FkkA mlds HkkbZz lqjs”k flag us y{e.k dks tku ekjdj ges >wBk Qlk;k gSA lqjs”k us >wBk Qlk;k gsA 2- iz0- lQkbZ nsxsA m0- th gkaA ih0 ,y- dksxkjh Signature of Addl. Sessions Judge The above examination was taken in my presence and hearing and contains a full and true account of the statement made by the accused. It was read over to the accused or interpreted to him in the language which he under stood and was admitted by ih0 ,y- dksxkjh Signature of Addl. Sessions Judge ________ “The examination of Ekbal Rai aged about 80 years taken before me Magistrate of the Class P.L. Kongari, 5th Addl. Sessions Judge, Siwan at on the 20 day 2 1988 in the Hindi language interpreted. My name is Ekbal Rai My father’s name is Saryug Rai My age is 82 years, I am by religion Hindu My nationality is Indian and I belong to Scheduled Cast/ Scheduled Tribe I am by occupation Hrihasti my home is at Mauza Bagauchhia Police Station Bhagwanpur District Siwan ¼1½ iz0- xokgksa dk dguk gS fd vki vU; vfHk;qDrksa ds lkFk yxHkx etek cukdj y{e.k flag dks Qjlk ls ekjs vkSj vU; yksxksa dks ekj ls y{e.k flag ogh ej x,A m0- th ugha ges >wBk Qlk;k x;k gS tehu ds >a>V ds pyrsA 2- iz- lQkbZ nsxsA m0- th gka ih0 ,y- dksxkjh Signature of Addl. Sessions Judge The above examination was taken in my presence and hearing and contains a full and true account of the statement made by the accused. Sessions Judge The above examination was taken in my presence and hearing and contains a full and true account of the statement made by the accused. It was read over to the accused or interpreted to him in the language which he under stood and was admitted by ih0 ,y- dksxkjh Signature of Addl. Sessions Judge ________ “ The examination of Jitan Rai aged about 25 years taken before me Magistrate of the Class P.L. Kongari, 5th Addl. Sessions Judge, Siwan at on the 20 day 2 1988 in the Hindi language interpreted. My name is Jitan Rai My father’s name is Hira Rai My age is 25 years, I am by religion Hindu My nationality is Indian and I belong to Scheduled Cast/ Scheduled Tribe I am by occupation Hrihasti my home is at Mauza Bagauchhia Police Station Bhagwanpur District Siwan ¼1½ iz0 xokgks dk dguk gS fd vki utk;t esa etek esa “kkfey gkssdj y{e.k flag dks ykBh ls Nkrh ij ekjs vkSj ekj ls y{e.k ogh ij ej x,A m0 th ugha eq>s >wBk Qlk;k gSA ?kVuk ds le; esa fnYyh esa FkkA 2- iz0 lQkbZ nsxsA m0 th gka ih0 ,y- dksxkjh Signature of Addl. Sessions Judge The above examination was taken in my presence and hearing and contains a full and true account of the statement made by the accused. It was read over to the accused or interpreted to him in the language which he under stood and was admitted by ih0 ,y- dksxkjh Signature of Addl. Sessions Judge ________ “The examination of Rabindra Rai aged about 20 years taken before me Magistrate of the Class P.L. Kongari, 5th Addl. Sessions Judge, Siwan at on the 20 day 2 1988 in the Hindi language interpreted. My name is Rabindra Rai My father’s name is Ekbal Rai My age is 20 years, I am by religion Hindu My nationality is Indian and I belong to Scheduled Cast/ Scheduled Tribe I am by occupation Grihasti my home is at Mauza Bagauchhia Police Station Bhagwanpur District Siwan ¼1½ iz0 xokgks dk dguk gS fd vki vU; vfHk;qDrks ds lkFk utk;t etek esa “kkfey gksdj y{e.k flag dks ykBh ls ekjk ,oa ekj ls y{e.k flag ogh ej x,A m0 th ughaA nq”euh >wBs Qalk;k gSA 2- iz0 lQkbZ nsxsA m0 fy[kdj nsxsa ih0 ,y- dksxkjh Signature of Addl. Sessions Judge The above examination was taken in my presence and hearing and contains a full and true account of the statement made by the accused. It was read over to the accused or interpreted to him in the language which he under stood and was admitted by ih0 ,y- dksxkjh Signature of Addl. Sessions Judge ________ “The examination of Kavindra Rai aged about 20 years taken before me Magistrate of the Class P.L. Kongari, 5th Addl. Sessions Judge, Siwan at on the 20 day 2 1988 in the Hindi language interpreted. My name is Kavindra Rai My father’s name is Ekbal Rai My age is 22 years, I am by religion Hindu My nationality is Indian and I belong to Scheduled Cast/ Scheduled Tribe I am by occupation Grihasti my home is at Mauza Bagauchhia Police Station Bhagwanpur District Siwan ¼1½ iz0 xokgksa dk dguk gS fd vki utk;t etek cukdj y[e.k flag dks ykBh ls ekjs ,oa ekj ls y{e.k ogh ij ej x,A m0 th ugha tehu ysdj nq”euh ls >wBk Qalk;k gSA eS ?kVuk ds fnu xkWo esa ugh FkkA 2- iz0 lQkbZ nsxsA m0 th gka ih0 ,y- dksxkjh Signature of Addl. Sessions Judge The above examination was taken in my presence and hearing and contains a full and true account of the statement made by the accused. It was read over to the accused or interpreted to him in the language which he under stood and was admitted by ih0 ,y- dksxkjh Signature of Addl. Sessions Judge _______ “The examination of Chandeshwar Rai aged about 22 years taken before me Magistrate of the Class P.L. Kongari, 5th Addl. Sessions Judge, Siwan at on the 20 day 2 (sic-of?) 1988 in the Hindi language interpreted. My name is Chandeshwar Rai My father’s name is Hira Rai My age is 22 years, I am by religion Hindu My nationality is Indian and I belong to Scheduled Cast/ Scheduled Tribe I am by occupation Grihasti my home is at Mauza Bagauchhia Police Station Bhagwanpur District Siwan ¼1½ iz0 xokgksa dk dguk gS fd vU; vfHk;qDrksa ds lkFk utk;t etek cukdj y{e.k flag dks ykBh ls ekjs ,oa ekjs ls y{e.k ogh ij ej x,A m0 th ugha nq”euh ls >wBs Qlk;k gSA eS ?kVuk ds le; fnYyh esa FkkA 2- iz0 lQkbZ nsxsA m0 th gka ih0 ,y- dksxkjh Signature of Addl. Sessions Judge The above examination was taken in my presence and hearing and contains a full and true account of the statement made by the accused. It was read over to the accused or interpreted to him in the language which he under stood and was admitted by ih0 ,y- dksxkjh Signature of Addl. Sessions Judge ________ “The examination of Rajeshwar Rai aged about 20 years taken before me Magistrate of the Class P.L. Kongari, 5th Addl. Sessions Judge, Siwan at on the 20 day 2 1988 in the Hindi language interpreted. My name is Rajeshwar Rai My father’s name is Hira Rai My age is 20 years, I am by religion Hindu My nationality is Indian and I belong to Scheduled Cast/ Scheduled Tribe I am by occupation Grihasti my home is at Mauza Bagauchhia Police Station Bhagwanpur District Siwan ¼1½ iz0 xokgksa dk dguk gS fd vU; vfHk;qDrksa ds lkFk utk;t etek esa “kkfey gksdj vki us y{e.k flag dks ykBh ls Nkrh ij ekjk vkSj ekj ls y{e.k ogh ij ej x,A m0 th ugha >wBs Qlk;k gSA ?kVuk ds le; eSa fnYyh esa FkkA 2- iz0 lQkbZ nsxsA m0 th gka ih0 ,y- dksxkjh Signature of Addl. Sessions Judge The above examination was taken in my presence and hearing and contains a full and true account of the statement made by the accused. It was read over to the accused or interpreted to him in the language which he under stood and was admitted by ih0 ,y- dksxkjh Signature of Addl. Sessions Judge ________ 31. From a reading of questionnaire under section 313 Cr.P.C. it would be clear that they were not subjected to the circumstances relating to actual charge for which they have been convicted under sections 302/149 I.P.C. The individual circumstance as gathered against these appellants for holding guilty as collected in course of evidence was also not put to them and therefore, their recording of statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. was made more or less by way of formality which would by itself vitiate the trial of these appellants. This aspect of the matter also stands well settled in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of V.K.Sasikala vs. State represented by Superintendent of Police, reported in (2012)9 SCC 771 , wherein it had been held as follows: “23. This aspect of the matter also stands well settled in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of V.K.Sasikala vs. State represented by Superintendent of Police, reported in (2012)9 SCC 771 , wherein it had been held as follows: “23. Any debate or discussion with regard to the purport and object of the examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is wholly unnecessary as the law in this regard is fairly well settled by a long line of the decisions of this Court: 23.1 The examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. not only provides the accused an opportunity to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence but such examination also permits him to put forward his own version, if he so chooses, with regard to his involvement or otherwise in the crime alleged against him. Viewed from the latter point of view, the examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. does have a fair nexus with the defence that he may choose to bring, if the need arises. Any failure on the part of the accused to put forward his version of the case in his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. may have the effect of curtailing his rights in the event the accused chooses to take up a specific defence and examine the defence witnesses. Besides, the answers given by the accused in his examination, if incorrect or incomplete, may also jeopardise him as such incorrect or incomplete answers may have the effect of strengthening the prosecution case against the accused. 23.2 In this connection it may be appropriate to refer to two paragraphs of the judgment of this Court in Manu Sao v. State of Bihar, reported in (2010)12 SCC 310 , which are extracted below: SCC pp. 316-17, paras 13-14) 13. As already noticed the object of recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of the Code is to put all incriminating evidence against the accused so as to provide him an opportunity to explain such incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution. At the same time, also to permit him to put forward his own version or reasons, if he so chooses, in relation to his involvement or otherwise in the crime. At the same time, also to permit him to put forward his own version or reasons, if he so chooses, in relation to his involvement or otherwise in the crime. The court has been empowered to examine the accused but only after the prosecution evidence has been concluded. It is a mandatory obligation upon the court and besides ensuring the compliance therewith the court has to keep in mind that the accused gets a fair chance to explain his conduct. The option lies with the accused to maintain silence coupled with simpliciter denial or in the alternative to explain his version and reasons for his alleged involvement in the commission of crime. This is the statement which the accused makes without fear or right of the other party to cross-examine him. However, if the statements made are false, the court is entitled to draw adverse inferences and pass consequential orders, as may be called for, in accordance with law. The primary purpose is to establish a direct dialogue between the court and the accused and to put to the accused every important incriminating piece of evidence and grant him an opportunity to answer and explain. Once such a statement is recorded, the next question that has to be considered by the court is to what extent and consequences such statement can be used during the enquiry and the trial. Over the period of time, the courts have explained this concept and now it has attained, more or less, certainty in the field of criminal jurisprudence. 14. The statement of the accused can be used to test the veracity of the exculpatory nature of the admission, if any, made by the accused. It can be taken into consideration in any enquiry or trial but still it is not strictly evidence in the case. The provisions of section 313(4) explicitly provide that the answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such enquiry or trial and put in evidence against the accused in any other enquiry or trial for any other offence for which such answers may tend to show he was committed. In other words, the use is permissible as per the provisions of the Code but has its own limitations. In other words, the use is permissible as per the provisions of the Code but has its own limitations. The courts may rely on a portion of the statement of the accused and find him guilty in consideration of the other evidence against him led by the prosecution however, such statements made under this section should not be considered in isolation but in conjunction with the evidence adduced by the prosecution.” 23.3 If the above is the avowed purport and object of the examination of an accused under section 313 Cr.P.C., we do not see as to how the appellant (second accused) can be denied an access to the documents in respect of which prayers have been made in the applications dated 29.3.2012 (for certified copies of the unmarked documents) and dated 18.4.2012 (for inspection) before the learned trial court. 23.4 While the anxiety to bring the trial to its earliest conclusion has to be shared it is fundamental that in the process none of the well entrenched principles of law that have been laboriously built by illuminating judicial precedents are sacrificed or compromised. In no circumstance, can the cause of justice be made to suffer, though, undoubtedly, it is highly desirable that the finality of any trial is achieved in the quickest possible time.” 32. In view of above, we are left with no option but to hold that on account of both the aforementioned illegalities in the matter of framing of charge as also recording of the statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained. Consequently the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. The appellants are on bail and they are, accordingly, discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.