Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1999 (JHR)

Ramesh Prasad Singh v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-08-31

B.B.MANGALMURTI, H.C.MISHRA

body2018
JUDGMENT H.C. Mishra, J. - Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned Judgement of conviction dated 27th February, 2002 and the Order of sentence dated 07th March, 2002, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track), Hazaribagh, in S.T. No. 463 of 1998, whereby, the appellant has been found guilty and convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.I for life for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and R.I for two years for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The appellant was in the police service, working as Librarian in Police Training College, Hazaribag, and was residing in the Government Quarter, allotted to him in the C.T.S Colony, Hazaribag, in which, the completely charred dead body of the wife of the appellant was found. Earlier, the U.D. Case No. 3 of 1998, was instituted on the basis of the statement of the present accused that his wife had committed suicide, but in view of the fact that upon the post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased conducted by the Medical Board constituted for the purpose, it was revealed that the deceased was first murdered and then her dead body was burnt, and all the burn injuries were found to be post-mortem in nature, the FIR was lodged on the basis of the written report of the informant Police Officer, who was investigating the U.D. case, submitted to the Officer In-charge of Sadar Police Station, Hazaribagh, on 17.1.1998. In the said written report, it is stated that on 17.1.1998, on the basis of telephonic information, this informant Police Officer along-with a constable had visited C.T.S. Colony at the Quarter of Ramesh Prasad Singh, who gave the statement that his wife, Usha Devi had committed suicide by putting herself to fire after closing the doors. On the basis of the said statement, the U.D. case was instituted and the charge of investigation was handed over to him. On the basis of the said statement, the U.D. case was instituted and the charge of investigation was handed over to him. Upon looking into the dead body and on the secret information that she was burnt by her husband, he requested the Civil Surgeon for constituting the Medical Board for conducting the post-mortem examination of the dead body, which was conducted by a Board, consisting of three Doctors, which found that the deceased had been done to death by strangulation. As such, the cognizable offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code were made out against the accused. The copies of the inquest report and the post-mortem report of the dead body were also submitted, along-with the written report, on the basis of which, Hazaribagh Sadar P.S Case No.23 of 1998, corresponding to G.R Case No. 101 of 1998, was instituted for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, against the sole accused, and investigation was taken up. Upon investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case. 4. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against the accused for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, and upon the accused''s pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, he was put to trial. In course of trial, twelve witnesses have been examined by the prosecution, including the I.O. and the Doctors, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. No evidence was adduced by the defence. 5. Out of the material witnesses examined, P.W.-1 Ajit Kumar Sinha, P.W.-3 Devendra Kumar Sinha @ Umesh, the maternal cousin of the accused, P.W.-5 Arjun Prasad Singh, P.W.-7 Narendra Prasad Singh, who is the brother of the deceased, and P.W.-11 Suresh Prasad Singh, who is another brother of the deceased, had turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case. P.W.-1 Ajit Kumar Sinha is also a witness to the inquest report and the seizure list, on which, he has proved his signatures as Exhibits-1 & 1/1 respectively. P.W.-1 Ajit Kumar Sinha is also a witness to the inquest report and the seizure list, on which, he has proved his signatures as Exhibits-1 & 1/1 respectively. P.W.-3 Devendra Kumar Sinha @ Umesh has stated that the accused was working as Librarian in Police Training College, Hazaribag, who is his maternal cousin and upon getting information, he went to the place of occurrence and saw that the door was closed and some people had assembled there, but in spite of the efforts made, the door could not be opened. He has also stated in his cross-examination by the defence that in his presence, the door was broken. P.W.-5 Arjun Prasad Singh has stated that he reached the place of occurrence and he saw the deceased completely burnt and also saw the door of the room broken. He is also a witness to the inquest report of the dead body, on which, he has proved his signature, which was marked Exhibit-1/3. P.W.-7 Narendra Prasad Singh, who is the brother of the deceased, has stated that the accused was working as Librarian in C.T.S, Hazaribag, and they had a son also, namely, Mukesh Sinha. This witness and P.W.-11 Suresh Prasad Singh, i.e., both the brothers of the deceased, had visited the place of occurrence after two days of the occurrence. However, both of them have stated that their sister was properly kept by the accused. She was physically and mentally very weak and earlier also, she had tried to commit suicide. P.W.-1 Ajit Kumar Sinha and P.W.-3 Devendra Kumar Sinha @ Umesh have also stated that the deceased was not keeping good health and was of petulant nature. 6. P.W.-6 Sola Bompai is the informant Police Officer. This witness had stated that on 17.1.1998, he was posted at Sadar Police Station, Hazaribag. He got a telephonic message that one lady had committed suicide in C.T.S. Colony, upon which, after making the necessary entry in the station diary, he along with the constable Chandra Bhushan Singh, visited C.T.S. Colony and went to the quarter of Ramesh Prasad Singh and recorded his statement, on the basis of which U.D. Case No. 3 of 1998 was instituted. He prepared the inquest report of the dead body, which he has proved and the same was marked Exhibit-2. He had also prepared the seizure list, which he has proved and the same was marked Exhibit-3. He prepared the inquest report of the dead body, which he has proved and the same was marked Exhibit-2. He had also prepared the seizure list, which he has proved and the same was marked Exhibit-3. He sent the dead body for post-mortem examination, and made a written request to the Chief Medical Officer for getting the post-mortem examination done through a Board of Doctors. He got the post-mortem report of the Board of Doctors, from which, it was revealed that the deceased was strangulated to death and thereafter, she was put to fire, pouring kerosene oil on her. Upon getting the post-mortem report, he realized that it was not a U.D. Case, rather it was a murder case, and he gave the written information along-with the inquest report and the post-mortem report. He has stated that he had seen the dead body, which was completely charred and there was no cloth on the dead body. The neighboring people did not inform him as to how the deceased had died. He has identified the written report to be in his pen and signature and the same was marked Exhibit-4. This witness was put to extensive cross-examination, wherein, he has stated that until the time, he was investigating the U.D. Case, the present accused was not an accused in that case, rather he was the informant in that case. He has stated that he had not seen any sign of strangulation on the dead body, nor he had found any bloodstains, but he had seen that the tongue of the deceased was protruded out. He had not got any photography done at the place of occurrence and he had not seized all the materials present in the room. He has denied the suggestion that he had submitted the written report only on the basis of suspicion. He has stated that he had not taken any written permission of the senior officer for getting the post-mortem done by the Medical Board, but the oral permission was given to him. 7. P.W.-4 is Chandra Bhushan Singh, the constable who had accompanied the informant to the place of occurrence, upon getting the telephonic information. This witness has stated that he was ordered to take the dead body for post-mortem examination. The dead body was in the burnt condition and he had also heard that the accused had committed the murder of his wife. This witness has stated that he was ordered to take the dead body for post-mortem examination. The dead body was in the burnt condition and he had also heard that the accused had committed the murder of his wife. He has also identified the accused in the Court. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he had no knowledge about the occurrence. 8. P.W.-2 is Arun Kumar Dubey, who is the resident of the same colony. This witness has stated that the occurrence had taken place on 17.1.1998 and he was in his Quarter No.6 in C.T.S. Colony, Hazaribag, situated in Police Training College. In the morning, there was a rumor that the accused had committed the murder of his wife by burning her. On getting this information, he came out of his quarter and he found that the accused was taking tea at the quarter of Devendra Prasad Sinha, situated in the same colony. He called one of his neighbors and they went to the quarter of the accused, where he saw that in the western room of the quarter, the dead body of the deceased was in flames. They put the water on the dead body for extinguishing the fire. There was a strong smell of kerosene oil and the tongue of the deceased was protruded out. He also saw that the bed of the deceased was also partly burnt. There was a door adjoining the next room in the eastern side and the curtain, which was hanging in the eastern room side of the door, was partly burnt. The ventilators of the room were blocked by papers. He has also stated that the deceased was not living with the accused, rather she had come in the marriage in the house of Devendra Prasad Sinha, who was also residing in the same colony, and who was related to the accused. The wife and husband were having a strained relationship and with a view to get their relationship normalized, the deceased was kept in the house of the accused. He has stated that he had heard that the accused and the deceased were not living in the same room, rather they were living in separate rooms. He has identified the accused in the Court. He has stated that he had heard that the accused and the deceased were not living in the same room, rather they were living in separate rooms. He has identified the accused in the Court. This witness was put to extensive cross-examination, in which he has stated that he had not seen the accused burning his wife and he had no personal relationship with the accused and his wife. Though the attention of this witness was drawn towards some statements made before the police, but no contradiction was taken from the I.O. of the case, and as such, the suggestion is not of any importance to the accused. He has also stated that the dead body was completely burnt with no cloth thereon. He had not given any attention towards the neck of the dead body of the deceased. He has denied the suggestions that the deceased had committed suicide and that due to some enmity, he had falsely implicated the accused. 9. P.W.-8 (Dr.) Nidhish Sharan, P.W.-9 Dr. A. Ganguly and P.W.-10 Dr. Bimal Kumar Verma, are the members of the Medical Board, which had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body. The findings have been proved by P.W.-8 (Dr.) Nidhish Sharan and P.W.-9 Dr. A. Ganguly. According to these witnesses, the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by the Medical Board, consisting both of them and Dr. B.K. Verma on 17.1.1998 and they found the following on the dead body :- Both eyes half opened, tongue swollen and protruded, blood tinged discharged from both angle of mouth and right nostril. Whole body charred with third degree deep burn with loss of hairs and involvement of both soles and palm and perineum. Rigor mortis present in both upper and lower limb. Strong smell of kerosene came out from the body. On dissection: - Hyoid bone fractured. Trachea wall congested. Tracheal rings collapsed. No black-soot present in tracheal tree. Both lungs intact congested. Heart- right chamber blood clots but left empty. Spleen, liver and kidney intact and congested. Stomach - muco-fluid about two ounce present. Uterus- Non gravid. Urinary bladder- empty. All mentioned burn injury over the dead body was post-mortem in nature. They have stated that in the opinion of the Medical Board, the cause of death was asphyxia, due to throttling. Heart- right chamber blood clots but left empty. Spleen, liver and kidney intact and congested. Stomach - muco-fluid about two ounce present. Uterus- Non gravid. Urinary bladder- empty. All mentioned burn injury over the dead body was post-mortem in nature. They have stated that in the opinion of the Medical Board, the cause of death was asphyxia, due to throttling. P.W.-8 (Dr.) Nithish Sharan has stated that the post-mortem report was written by him and bears the signature of all of them and on his identification, the post-mortem report was marked at Exhibit-5. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the third degree burn means the burn up to muscles. He has also stated that the hyoid bone cannot get fractured due to the transportation of the dead body, even if the whole body is charred. This witness has also stated that if a live body is burnt, black soot would be found in the trachea, but this was absent in the present post-mortem. The throttling mark was not found over the neck. P.W.-9 Dr. A. Ganguli has stated in his cross-examination that the third degree burn means deep burn up to the muscle and bone and there was no mention about any ligature mark on the neck in the report. The percentage of the burn has not been given in the report and he did not remember whether the dead body was in identifiable condition or not. P.W.-10 Dr. B.K. Verma was only tendered by the prosecution. 10. P.W.-12 Saroj Kumar Singh is the I.O of the case. This witness has stated that on 17.1.1988, he was posted as S.I at Sadar Police Station, Hazaribag. The Officer In-charge got the written report from the informant Police Officer, on the basis of which, the police case was instituted and the charge of investigation was handed over to him. The present police case was instituted on the basis of investigation made in the U.D. case. He recorded the re-statement of the informant Police Officer. He had also received the inquest report and the post-mortem report, along-with the written report. He recorded the statement of the constable Chandra Bhushan Singh at the Police Station itself, and thereafter, he proceeded for the place of occurrence. He inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the sketch map. He recorded the re-statement of the informant Police Officer. He had also received the inquest report and the post-mortem report, along-with the written report. He recorded the statement of the constable Chandra Bhushan Singh at the Police Station itself, and thereafter, he proceeded for the place of occurrence. He inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the sketch map. He has stated that the place of occurrence is Quarter No.4 in CTS Colony, which is a Government quarter, allotted to the accused Ramesh Prasad Singh. He has stated that the dead body of the deceased was in the western room of the quarter, in which, the deceased used to live. There was smell of kerosene oil in the said room. The curtain hanging on the door between this room and the adjoining room was burnt and the ventilators of the room of the deceased were blocked by papers, whereas the ventilators of the other rooms were left open. He has given the boundary of quarter, in which, the occurrence had taken place. He recorded the statements of the witnesses and arrested Ramesh Prasad Singh. He had mentioned the contents of U.D. Case in the case diary also and after completing the investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that the fardbeyan of Ramesh Prasad Singh in the U.D case is not available in the case diary, but its contents are mentioned in paragraph 17 of the case diary. He has stated that he reached the place of occurrence and found the door open. He has denied the suggestion of making faulty investigation. 11. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein he has denied the evidence against him. No evidence was adduced by the defence in the case. On the basis of the materials on record, the appellant has been found guilty, and convicted and sentenced for the offences as aforesaid. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned Judgement of conviction and the Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, inasmuch as, the prosecution has not been able to bring home the charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned Judgement of conviction and the Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, inasmuch as, the prosecution has not been able to bring home the charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. It is submitted that most of the witnesses have turned hostile, including the two brothers of the deceased, P.W.-7 Narendra Prasad Singh and P.W.-11 Suresh Prasad Singh, and both of them have stated that the deceased was mentally weak and had the tendency of committing suicide. They have not made any allegation against this appellant. It is also submitted that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence and there is only circumstantial evidence in the case. Learned counsel submitted that the fact, that the deceased had committed suicide, cannot be ruled out, in view of the evidence of P.W.-3 Devendra Kumar Sinha @ Umesh, who has stated that when he reached the place of occurrence, the door of the room of the quarter was closed, which was broken in his presence and P.W.-5 Arjun Prasad Singh has also stated that he had seen the broken door, and as such, the evidence of these witnesses, show that the deceased had committed suicide after confining herself in the room. Her brothers have stated that she had a tendency to commit suicide and the other witnesses have also stated that she used to keep ill and she was of petulant nature. Learned counsel has further submitted that simply due to the fact that the hyoid bone was found to be fractured, it could not be presumed that the deceased was murdered prior to her death by burning, in view of the fact that as the dead body of the deceased was completely charred, the bone could be fractured due to deep burns. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that simply for the fact that there was absence of black soot in the trachea, it could not be inferred that the deceased was murdered and thereafter, her dead body was burnt. It is further submitted that the Doctors conducting the post-mortem examination have come to a wrong conclusion that the burn injuries were post-mortem in nature, and they have not stated about any other feature of post-mortem burns, except the absence of black soot in the trachea. 13. It is further submitted that the Doctors conducting the post-mortem examination have come to a wrong conclusion that the burn injuries were post-mortem in nature, and they have not stated about any other feature of post-mortem burns, except the absence of black soot in the trachea. 13. Learned counsel has also submitted that all the circumstances against the accused were not put to the accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., and on this score also, the Judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court below, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. In this connection, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra , (1984) AIR SC 1622. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court towards certain medical papers on the subject, in support of his contention that the absence of black soot particles in the trachea may not always indicate that the burn was post-mortem in nature. Learned counsel has also drawn our attention towards books of medical jurisprudence to show the specific features found in the cases of post-mortem burns, and has submitted that these features have not been proved by the Medical Board, conducting the post-mortem examination. Learned counsel submitted that it is a well settled principle of law that even in the case of circumstantial evidence, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the circumstances, which must be consistent only with a hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and it should not be explainable to other hypothesis, except the guilt of the accused, and the circumstances should be of conclusive nature, excluding every other possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. Learned counsel further submitted that even Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not absolve the prosecution of this responsibility. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Shambhu Nath Mehra Vs. The State of Ajmer , (1956) AIR SC 404, Vikramjit Singh @ Vicky Vs. State of Punjab , (2006) 12 SCC 306 , Sujit Biswas Vs. State of Assam , (2013) 12 SCC 406 , and in Padala Veera Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh , (1990) AIR SC 79. The State of Ajmer , (1956) AIR SC 404, Vikramjit Singh @ Vicky Vs. State of Punjab , (2006) 12 SCC 306 , Sujit Biswas Vs. State of Assam , (2013) 12 SCC 406 , and in Padala Veera Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh , (1990) AIR SC 79. Placing reliance on these decisions, learned counsel submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant was entitled at least to the benefits of doubt. 15. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, inasmuch as the circumstances, which have been proved in the case, point out only towards the guilt of the accused and not otherwise. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the deceased was the wife of the accused, and on the date of occurrence both of them were living in the same quarter, and the dead body of the deceased was found in the quarter in burnt condition, which was completely charred. Though the witnesses, who had turned hostile, have stated that the room was closed and the door had to be broken, but no door was found to be broken by the I.O. of the case and there is no such evidence in the evidence of the I.O. Learned counsel submitted that the post-mortem report revealed that it was a case of strangulation and all the burn injuries were post-mortem in nature, and as such, the prosecution has been able to bring home the charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, and there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below. 16. Having heard the learned counsels for both sides and upon going through the record, we find that this a case of circumstantial evidence. Admittedly, there is no eyewitness to the occurrence, witnessing the accused putting the deceased to fire after pouring kerosene oil on her. The fact, however, remains that according to the evidence on record, there were only two inmates in the quarter, i.e., the deceased and her husband, who is the present accused. Admittedly, there is no eyewitness to the occurrence, witnessing the accused putting the deceased to fire after pouring kerosene oil on her. The fact, however, remains that according to the evidence on record, there were only two inmates in the quarter, i.e., the deceased and her husband, who is the present accused. It is stated that out of the wedlock, they had a son, but the son was not present in the house, as none of the witnesses, even the hostile witnesses, have stated about his presence. In fact, in the fardbeyan of the U.D. Case, contents of which is mentioned in the case diary, though not proved, but it shows that the son was studying elsewhere. P.W.-2 Arun Kumar Dubey is the resident of the same colony, who has stated that he heard the rumor that the deceased was burnt by her husband. He came out of the house and saw the accused taking tea at the quarter of PW.-3 Devendra Kumar Sinha @ Umesh, situated in the same colony, who is the maternal cousin of the accused. There is no cross-examination of this witness that he had not given any such statement before the police. This conduct of the accused is very doubtful. This witness went to the house of the accused and saw the dead body still in flames, which had to be extinguished by water. He has stated that the dead body was in the western room and the curtain on the door between the room and the adjoining eastern room, which was from the side of the eastern room, was burnt. This fact is also stated by the I.O., P.W.-12 Saroj Kumar Singh. This evidence clearly shows that that door was not closed, as had the door been closed there was no occasion of burning the curtain without burning the door. There is no evidence on record that any door was found to be burnt. Though P.W.-3 Devendra Kumar Sinha @ Umesh has stated that the door of the room was closed which was broken in his presence and P.W.-5 Arjun Prasad Singh has also stated that the he had seen the broken door, but these facts are not supported by the evidence of the I.O, P.W.-12 Saroj Kumar Singh, who has not stated either about any broken or the burnt door in the house. The I.O. has clearly stated that the ventilator of the room where the deceased was burnt, was blocked by papers, whereas the ventilators of the other rooms were not blocked. This clearly shows that the abundant precaution was taken by the accused before burning the dead body of the deceased. It cannot be believed that the deceased, while committing suicide, had blocked the ventilators, in view of the evidence of the hostile witnesses, including the two brothers of the deceased that she was mentally and physically weak. We also find from the evidence of P.W.-6 Sola Bompai, the informant Police Officer, that the tongue of the deceased was protruded out, and this evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-8 (Dr.) Nidhish Sharan and P.W.-9 Dr. A. Ganguly. Their evidences also show that the hyoid bone was fractured and the deceased was strangulated to death before her dead body was burnt, as all the burn injuries were found to be post-mortem in nature. There was no black soot present in the trachea of the deceased, which also proved the fact that the burn was post-mortem in nature. The strong smell of kerosene oil was found even by the team of Doctors conducting the post-mortem examination on the dead body and even the informant Police Officer, as well as the I.O., who had visited the place of occurrence, had also found the strong smell of kerosene oil. Though the learned counsel for the appellant has tried to impress upon us that the absence of soot in the trachea, or the fracture of the hyoid bone may be found even in the cases of ante-mortem burns, but the fact remains that the Medical Board conducting the post-mortem report has given a specific finding that it was a case of post-mortem burn. Although these doctors have not stated about other features of the post-mortem burns, but the fact remains that there is no cross examination of these witnesses on any of such features. 17. Although these doctors have not stated about other features of the post-mortem burns, but the fact remains that there is no cross examination of these witnesses on any of such features. 17. We are of the considered view that on the basis of the evidence on record, the prosecution has been able to prove the fact that the deceased was first strangulated to death, which had resulted in the fracture of hyoid bone and the protruding out of the tongue, and thereafter, the dead body was burnt by pouring kerosene oil on it, by the accused, who was only other inmate in the house, after taking all precautions, i.e., blocking the ventilator by papers etc. As such, we find that the circumstances proved by the prosecution point only towards the guilt of the accused and towards no other hypothesis, and the precedents relied upon by the learned counsel for the defence are of no help to the accused. 18. Though learned counsel has also submitted that all the circumstances have not been put to the accused in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., which may be an omission on the part of the Trial Court, but it is a well settled principle of law that the failure of the Trial Court in putting all the circumstances to the accused in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., shall not ipso facto result in the failure of the prosecution, rather the defence has to prove as to what prejudice has been caused to it by non-putting any such circumstance to the accused. The law in this regard is well settled by the Apex Court in Paramjeet Vs. State of Uttarakhand , (2010) 10 SCC 439 , as follows :- "30. Thus, it is evident from the above that the provisions of Section 313 CrPC make 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 has resulted in the failure of justice. 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 has 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 caused to the accused by the omission of the court." This decision has also been relied upon with the approval by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Nar Singh Vs. State of Haryana , (2015) 1 SCC 496 , and the law has been laid down as follows:- "16. Undoubtedly, the importance of a statement under Section 313 CrPC, insofar as the accused is concerned, can hardly be minimised. The statutory provision is based on the rules of natural justice for an accused, who must be made aware of the circumstances being put against him so that he can give a proper explanation to meet that case. If an objection as to Section 313 CrPC statement is taken at the earliest stage, the court can make good the defect and record additional statement of the accused as that would be in the interest of all. When objections as to defective Section 313 CrPC statement is raised in the appellate court, then difficulty arises for the prosecution as well as the accused. When the trial court is required to act in accordance with the mandatory provisions of Section 313 CrPC, failure on the part of the trial court to comply with the mandate of the law, in our view, cannot automatically enure to the benefit of the accused. Any omission on the part of the court to question the accused on any incriminating circumstance would not ipso facto vitiate the trial, unless some material prejudice is shown to have been caused to the accused. Insofar as non-compliance with mandatory provisions of Section 313 CrPC is concerned it is an error essentially committed by the learned Sessions Judge. Since justice suffers in the hands of the court, the same has to be corrected or rectified in the appeal. *** *** *** 20. Insofar as non-compliance with mandatory provisions of Section 313 CrPC is concerned it is an error essentially committed by the learned Sessions Judge. Since justice suffers in the hands of the court, the same has to be corrected or rectified in the appeal. *** *** *** 20. The question whether a trial is vitiated or not depends upon the degree of the error and the accused must show that non-compliance with Section 313 CrPC has materially prejudiced him or is likely to cause prejudice to him. Merely because of defective questioning under Section 313 CrPC, it cannot be inferred that any prejudice had been caused to the accused, even assuming that some incriminating circumstances in the prosecution case had been left out. When prejudice to the accused is alleged, it has to be shown that the accused has suffered some disability or detriment in relation to the safeguard given to him under Section 313 CrPC. Such prejudice should also demonstrate that it has occasioned failure of justice to the accused. The burden is upon the accused to prove that prejudice has been caused to him or in the facts and circumstances of the case, such prejudice may be implicit and the Court may draw an inference of such prejudice. The facts of each case have to be examined to determine whether actually any prejudice has been caused to the appellant due to omission of some incriminating circumstances being put to the accused." 19. During his arguments, learned counsel for the defence could not point out any prejudice that has been caused to the accused due to not putting any circumstance to the accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. As such, failure on the part of the Trial Judge in putting the circumstances to the accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., shall not ipso facto result in the failure of the prosecution, in view of the law settled as above. 20. 20. We are of the considered view, that on the basis of the evidence brought on record, the prosecution has been able to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that the accused had committed the murder of his wife by strangulating her and in order to causing disappearance of the evidence, he burnt the dead body of the deceased by pouring kerosene oil on her, after taking all precautions, i.e., blocking the ventilators of the room and closing the room, so that no one could see the occurrence, and for giving it an appearance that the deceased had committed suicide. We are of the considered view that both the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code are completely made out against the accused, which has been proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts, and there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below, worth any interference by this Court. 21. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 27th February 2002 and Order of sentence dated 07th March 2002, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track), Hazaribag, in S.T. Case No. 463 of 1998, convicting and sentencing the appellant, Ramesh Prasad Singh, for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, which we hereby, affirm. The appellant, Ramesh Prasad Singh is on bail. His bail is hereby, cancelled and he is directed to surrender in the Court below forthwith for serving out the sentence. The Trial Court below is also directed to issue the process forthwith, compelling the surrender / production of the appellant for serving out the sentence. 22. We find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along-with a copy of this Judgement.