Latest JudgementBharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2025

The Non-compliance with Section 313 CrPC leading to acquittal in a murder case.

Supreme Court of India·22 April 2025

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date of Decision

22 April 2025

Judges

Justice Abhay S. Oka ⦁ Justice Pankaj Mithal ⦁ Justice Ahsanuddin Amanulla

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Facts of the Case

The case pertains to a murder incident where the accused, Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh, was charged with the killing of his wife and three daughters.
During the trial, the trial court acquitted the accused due to insufficient evidence and procedural gaps.
The High Court later upheld this acquittal on the grounds of discrepancies in the prosecution’s case, including the inadmissibility of the dying declaration.
A key contention during the Supreme Court appeal was that vital prosecution evidence had not been presented to the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC, which mandates giving the accused a chance to explain incriminating material.
The accused argued that this procedural lapse invalidated the fairness of the trial, and thus his acquittal should not be overturned.
The Supreme Court acknowledged this procedural flaw, but after reviewing the High Court’s reasoning, it chose not to interfere with the acquittal.

Whether the trial court's failure to present vital prosecution evidence to the accused under Section 313 CrPC constitutes a violation of the accused's right?
What is the role of High Courts in ensuring compliance with Section 313 CrPC during criminal appeal?

High Courts must check for compliance with Section 313 CrPC at the outset of hearing criminal appeals.
If there is non-compliance, it must be corrected immediately: Either by the High Court recording the statement of the accused Or by sending the case back to the trial court specifically for this purpose.
If this practice is followed: Judicial time will be conserved and The accused cannot later raise the argument that they were denied a fair trial due to lack of opportunity to respond to evidence.
The Court also stressed the importance of using Section 313(5) in cases with a large number of prosecution witnesses, to reduce errors in statement recording.
Judicial academies were directed to take note and address this issue in their training programs for judges.

The judgment reflects the Supreme Court's growing frustration with lower courts overlooking vital procedural safeguards.
Section 313 CrPC plays a crucial role in upholding the principle of natural justice by giving the accused a fair chance to respond to the case against them.
The Court rightly pointed out that a trial without this opportunity is incomplete and unjust, as the accused is not allowed to confront and explain incriminating evidence.
The practical approach suggested—early intervention by High Courts—could prevent years of litigation and address errors before they become irreversible.
By invoking Section 313(5) and encouraging its use, the Court shows awareness of the complexity of modern trials, especially where voluminous evidence is involved.
The judgment balances procedural rigor with practical wisdom by choosing not to reopen an old trial but still setting a precedent for future cases.
This case may serve as a benchmark for how procedural lapses are handled and reaffirms the judiciary’s role in protecting due process.