Latest JudgementCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Chandan Pasi & Ors. v. State of Bihar, 2025

The Trial court must ask specific, material questions relating to allegations; accused must have opportunity to answer each in their own words.

Supreme Court of India·1 December 2025
Chandan Pasi & Ors. v. State of Bihar, 2025
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Share:

Judgement Details

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date of Decision

1 December 2025

Judges

Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh

Citation

Acts / Provisions

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

Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Facts of the Case

  • Three individuals were convicted for murder by the trial court and life sentences were upheld by the Patna High Court.

  • They appealed to the Supreme Court, contending gross non-compliance with Section 313 CrPC, which allows the accused to answer allegations personally.

  • Trial court’s examination of accused was mechanical and superficial questions were generic, statements were identical (carbon copies), and only two of four questions directly addressed prosecution allegations.

  • Prosecution was found to have failed in its duty to assist the Court, focusing solely on conviction rather than justice.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial court’s mechanical examination under Section 313 CrPC violated the accused’s right to a fair trial?

  2. Whether prosecution’s bias or failure to assist the court undermined the trial?

  3. What procedural standards must be followed while recording Section 313 statements?

Held

  • The appeal was allowed.

  • Trial to recommence from Section 313 CrPC stage.

  • Emphasized that fair trial is a non-negotiable constitutional requirement and procedural lapses can vitiate convictions.

Analysis

  • Trial court must ask specific, material questions relating to allegations; accused must have opportunity to answer each in their own words.

  • Identical statements and generic questioning violate principles of fair trial.

  • Prosecutors must assist the Court, not act solely as advocates for conviction.

  • Right to fair trial under Article 21 cannot be compromised by procedural shortcuts.

  • Reiterates Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. State of U.P. principle prosecution is an officer of the court, not a defense adversary.

  • Convictions cannot stand when statutory safeguards are ignored; retrial ensures procedural justice.