SC says an accused can't be convicted without a fair explanation

New Delhi, June 10 (UNI) In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has held that an accused cannot be convicted for an offence until and unless he or she was provided ample opportunity to explain the charges brought in against him.

A Bench comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat and D K Jain has issued the ruling while acquitting a policeman, Ajay Singh, of the charges of his wife Lata Bai's murder on April 29, 2003 in Nagpur.

The trial court convicted the accused and sentenced him to life imprisonment for setting his wife on fire by pouring kerosene oil on her.

However, the conviction was later upheld by the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court.

While setting aside the judgement of the High Court as well as of the trial court, the apex court in its judgemnt noted, ''The object of examination under Section 313 of CrPC is to give the accused an opportunity to explain the case made against him. This statement can be taken into consideration in judging his innocene or guilt.'' ''The question must be framed in such a way as to enable the accused to know what he is to explain, what are the circumstances which are against him and for which an explation is needed.'' ''The whole object of the section is to offer the accused a fair and proper oppurtunity of explaning circumstances which appear against him. A conviction based on the accused failure to explain what he was never asked to explain is bad in law,'' it added.

The apex court also obseved, ''The questioning must be fair and couched in a form which an ignorant or illiterate person will be able to appreciate and understand. Even when an accused is not illiterate his mind is act to be perturbed when he is facing charge of murder. Fairness, therefore, requires that each material circumstance should be put simply and separately in a way that an illiterate mind or one which is perturbed or confused can readily appreciate and understand.'' The accused policeman was convicted on the basis of extra judicial confession, but he was never asked to explain the veracity of his confession when he was examined under section 313 CrPC in which he was reported to have said, ''Kakaji Lata mar gayi mere hath se.'' UNI AKS SC SSC BST2122