IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.808 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-35 Year-2019 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Ravindra Sharma @ Ravinder Sharma, Son of Late Mohan Sharma, Resident of Village- Sendhawa, PS- Parasbigha, Distt- Jehanabad. ... ... Appellant Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate Ms. Kiran Kumari, Advocate Md. Imteyaz Ahmad, Advocate Mr. Ritwij Raman, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, Addl.PP For the Informant : Mr. Ram Prawesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KUMAR MANISH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD) Date : 15-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the informant. 2. The present appeal has been preferred for setting aside the judgment of conviction dated 28.06.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) and the order of sentence dated 05.07.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order’) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jehanabad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court’) in Sessions Trial No. 102/ 2020 / 63/2020 arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 35 of 2019. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.808 of 2023 dt.15-06-2026 2/20 convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 457/34 and 376D of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’). By the impugned order, he has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment under Section 341/34 IPC and six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 323/34 IPC. He has also been sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 457/34 IPC with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. He has further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twenty years under Section 376D IPC with a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences are to run concurrently. Prosecution Case 3. The prosecution case is based on the written application of the informant (PW-3) wherein he has stated that on 30.06.2019 at about 01:30 in the night accused persons, namely, (1) Ravindra Sharma, (2) Shivdahin Thakur, (3) Ajay Yadav, (4) Shiv Yadav, (5) Ranjeet Yadav, (6) Bajrangi Sao, and (7) Pappu Kumar along with two unknown persons entered into the house from the roof through ladder. As soon as they entered the house, the accused persons started abusing and with an intention to kill Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.808 of 2023 dt.15-06-2026 3/20 they assaulted the father of the informant on his head with the butt of pistol due to which he got injured. Thereafter, the informant was also assaulted. Bajrangi Sao and Pappu Kumar caught hold of the informant and tied his leg and mouth and Ajay Yadav committed rape upon his wife and was holding her hands and legs. The mother of the informant was raped by Ravindra Sharma and Shivdahin Thakur caught hold of her. Two unknown persons have caught hold of the father of informant. Bajrangi Sao snatched golden chain and locket of Bajrangbali from his neck and took away all the ornaments from the godrej and ransacked the household articles like T.V. and Fridge etc. They also assaulted younger brother of the informant and outside the main gate, they resorted to five rounds of firing due to which Mohalla people assembled. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid written application of the informant, FIR being Mahila P.S. Case No. 35 of 2019 dated 30.06.2019 was registered under Sections 457, 341, 323, 307, 379, 504, 376D, 427/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act against accused persons, namely, (1) Ravindra Sharma, (2) Shivdahin Thakur, (3) Ajay Yadav, (4) Shiv Yadav, (5) Ranjeet Yadav, (6) Bajrangi Sao, (7) Pappu Kumar and two unknown persons. After investigation, police submitted chargesheet bearing Chargesheet Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.808 of 2023 dt.15-06-2026 4/20 No. 50 of 2019 dated 22.09.2019 against this appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 457, 341, 323, 504, 376D, 427/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act keeping investigation pending against other accused persons. 5. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad vide order dated 05.10.2019 took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 457, 323, 504, 376(D), 427, 34 IPC against the appellant and committed the records to the court of Sessions. In course of hearing, this Court has been informed that the trial of other accused persons against whom the supplementary chargesheet was submitted later on, is presently pending. Charges were read over and explained to the appellant in Hindi to which he denied and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, charges were framed vide order dated 20.10.2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 323/34, 341/34, 427/34, 457/34, 376D/34 and 504/34 of the IPC. 6. In course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses and got exhibited several documents. The list of prosecution witnesses and the documents are given hereunder in tabular form:- List of Prosecution witnesses Prosecution Witness No. Name of the Witness Description of the Witness Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.808 of 2023 dt.15-06-2026 5/20 PW-1 Mohan Singh I.O. PW-2 Mother of the Informant Victim PW-3 Informant Injured Witness PW-4 Father of the Informant Injured Witness PW-5 Wife of the informant Victim PW-6 Brother of the Informant Injured Witness PW-7 Chandrawati Singh I.O. PW-8 Dr. Uday Shankar Doctor PW-9 Dr. Renu Singh Doctor List of Exhibits on behalf of Prosecution Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/ Attested by ‘P-1’ Signature of the informant on the written application PW-5 ‘P-2’ Signature of the Informant on the seizure list of mother of the informant ‘P-2/1’ Signature of the Informant on the seizure list of the wife of the informant ‘P-3’ Signature of PW-5 on the statement under Section 164 CrPC ‘P-4’ Forwarding Letter of accused Ravinder Sharma ‘P-5’ Endorsement regarding Registration of FIR. ‘P-6’ Formal FIR ‘P-7’ Seizure List regarding PW-2 ‘P-8’ Signature of ASI Babita on Seizure List regarding PW-2 PW-7 ‘P-9’ Seizure List regarding PW5 PW-7 ‘PW-10’ Signature of ASI Babita on Seizure List regarding PW-5 PW-7 ‘PW-11’ Signature of Dr. Udai Shankar on the medical Examination Report of PW-2 PW-8 ‘PW-12’ Signature of Dr. Renu Singh on the Medical Examination PW-8 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.808 of 2023 dt.15-06-2026 6/20 Report of PW-2 ‘PW-13’ Signature of Dr. Udai Shankar on the Medical Examination Report of PW-5 PW-8 ‘PW-14’ Signature of Dr. Renu Singh on the Medical Examination Report of PW-5 PW-8 ‘PW-15’ Injury report of PW-3 PW-8 ‘P-16’ Injury Report of PW-4 PW-8 ‘P-17’ Injury Report of PW-6 PW-8 ‘P-18’ Medical Report of PW-2 PW-9 ‘P-19’ Medical Report of PW-5 PW-9 ‘P-20’ FSL Report No. 1320 dated 30.12.2019 ‘P-21’ Statement of PW-2 under Section 164 CrPC ‘P-22’ Statement of PW-5 under Section 164 CrPC 7. Thereafter, the statement of the appellant was recorded twice under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘CrPC’). The appellant in his 313 CrPC statement denied the allegation and amongst other things he stated that at the age of 70 years, he could neither climb the roof of the house of the informant nor have committed the crime. 8. The Defence has also produced four witnesses on behalf of the appellant and also produced some documentary evidences which are being mentioned hereunder in tabular form:- List of Defence witnesses Defence Witness No. Name of the Witness Description of the Witness DW-1 Gamandi Sao Other Witness Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.808 of 2023 dt.15-06-2026 7/20 DW-2 Shivcharan Sao Other Witness DW-3 Shree Ram Sharma Other Witness DW-4 Akhilesh Kumar Other Witness List of Exhibits on behalf of Defence Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/ Attested by ‘D-1’ CC of order dated 22.01.2020 of S. Tr. No. 313/10 ‘D-2’ CC of judgment dated 27.04.2011 in S.Tr. No. 180/07 9. The case of the defence is that of a false implication at the instance of one Pappu Rai with whom the appellant claimed prior enmity. Findings of the Learned Trial Court 10. Learned trial court having considered the materials available on the record, held that the witnesses are cogent, consistent and corroborative regarding the time, place and manner of occurrence. It has been held that the ocular testimonies are supported by medical examination report of the victim (Exhibit ‘P- 18’), Injury Reports (Exhibits ‘P-15’, ‘P-16’ and ‘P-17’), Production-cum-seizure list (Exhibit ‘P-7’), the FSL Report (Exhibit ‘P-20’) and attending circumstances. The learned trial court reached to a conclusion that the prosecution has successfully proved the fact that the appellant, in furtherance of common intention with his associates entered the house of the informant by jumping the terrace of the informant assaulted the informant, his Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.808 of 2023 dt.15-06-2026 8/20 father and brother and committed gang rape upon the victim (PW2). 11. Learned trial court after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case concluded that the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, learned trial court convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 457/34 and 376D IPC. Submissions on behalf of the appellant 12. Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel representing the appellant, has raised several grounds to strengthen his submissions that the impugned judgment and order of the learned trial court are based on an erroneous appreciation of the evidences available on the record. One of the grounds raised before this Court is that there is no proper compliance with the mandatory requirements provided under Section 313 CrPC now Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (in short ‘BNSS’). Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court towards the form of recording of examination of accused available in the paperbook. It is submitted that if this Court is satisfied that there is no proper compliance with Section 313 CrPC, then instead of examining the other grounds and giving any opinion with Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.808 of 2023 dt.15-06-2026 9/20 respect to the other grounds, it would be appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment and order on the solitary ground of non- compliance with Section 313 CrPC, in such circumstance, the matter would be required to go to the learned trial court by way of a remand. Submissions on behalf of the State and Informant 13. Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Ram Prawesh Kumar, learned counsel for the informant do not contest the submissions of Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned Advocate for the appellant. Consideration 14. In the aforementioned background of the submissions, we would first consider as to whether there is a proper compliance with the requirements of Section 313 CrPC. 15. In this connection, when we examine the trial court’s judgment, it is found that so far as the charges under Section 504/34 and Section 427/34 IPC are concerned, the learned trial court has observed after going through the evidences as under:- “….. In this connection, though allegation has been made of abusing the informant party against the accused as well as committing mischief in the FIR, yet neither of the witnesses including the informant have stated to this effect in their Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.808 of 2023 dt.15-06-2026 10/20 testimonies at all. The words of abuse are also not cited in the FIR also. Therefore, in my considered opinion prosecution has failed to prove charge against the sole accused under section 504, 427/34 IPC. Accordingly, the sole accused is hereby acquitted of the charge under Section 504/34 and 427/34 IPC.” 16. To prove the charges under Sections 341, 323, 457/34 and 376D IPC against the accused-appellant, the learned trial court relied upon the evidence of the informant (PW-3), his father (PW-4) and brother (PW-6) who are said to be the injured witnesses. The learned trial court further relied upon the evidence of the two female victims-PW-2 (mother of the informant/victim ‘X’) and the victim ‘Y’ (PW-5). The trial court has held that they have corroborated the evidence of PW-3, PW-4 and PW-6. The trial court held that the evidence is against the accused of committing gang rape of victim ‘X’ only and nothing has been brought on the record to show that the accused Ravindra Sharma also shared common intention of committing rape of Victim ‘Y’ and no active role has also been attributed against this appellant in committing rape of victim ‘Y’. The allegation of committing gang rape of ‘Y’ is on Ajay Yadav, Bajrangi Sao and Pappu Sao. The trial court found that victim ‘X’ (PW-2) has stated in her cross- Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.808 of 2023 dt.15-06-2026 11/20 examination that during course of being raped, she sustained injury on her back and other body parts and her bangles were also broken and on this count defence had taken a plea that in the medical examination no injury has been found on her any body parts and I.O. had also not found broken bangles on the alleged place of occurrence but by observing that the doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not applicable in India and the grain is to be separated from the chaff, the trial court took a view that the whole evidence of PW-2 cannot be discarded. The solitary evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution if it inspires confidence. The trial court has further held that the testimonies of the witnesses also find objective corroboration from Exhibit ‘P-18’, ‘P-15’, ‘P-16’ and ‘P-17’. The doctors who examined the victim and injured of the present case have been examined as PW-8 and PW-9 and they have proved the medical examination report (Exhibit ‘18’). 17. Now coming to the statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC, which was recorded twice firstly on 18.11.2022 and secondly after conclusion of the argument, the case was fixed for judgment and vide order dated 08.05.2023, the learned trial court observed that while writing judgment it was found that the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 CrPC is Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.808 of 2023 dt.15-06-2026 12/20 defective as all the circumstances which have come during evidence of prosecution have not been explained to the sole accused, therefore, the learned trial court found it necessary for the ends of justice that all the circumstances against the accused must be explained to him and statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC be recorded afresh. Accordingly, on 11.05.2023 statement of accused-appellant under Section 313 CrPC was again recorded. This Court deems it just and proper to extract the full form of both the statements of the accused hereunder in order to take a view as to whether all the incriminating materials and circumstances have been brought to the notice of the accused facing the trial:- Statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC dated 18.11.2022 “iz”u& vkius lkf{k;ksa dk lk{; lquk gS \ mRrj & th gkWA iz”u & vkids f[kykQ lk{; gS fd vki fnukad 30-06-2019 dks djhc 1%30 cts jk=h esa bl dsl ds lwpd “k”kh lko firk “kadj lko ds ?kj esa Nr rM+idj ?kj ds fl<+h ls mrjdj ?kj esa ?kqlk vkSj lwpd ds ek¡ deys”k nsoh dks f”konghu Bkdqj idM+s jgk rFkk vkius cykRdkj fd;k gSA D;k dguk gS\ mRrj & fcydqy xyr gS fdlh rjg dk cykRdkj ugha gqvk gSA iz”u & lQkbZ esa D;k dguh gS\ mRrj & ge funksZ’k gSA” Statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC dated 11.05.2023 “iz”u& vkius lkf{k;ksa dk lk{; lquk gS \ mRrj & th gkWA iz”u & vkids fo:) lk{; gS fd fnukad 30-06-2019 dks djhc Ms<+ cts jk=h esa vki vU; vfHk;qDrksa ds lkFk feydj jkbZQy fiLrkSy fy, gq, dsl ds lwpd] “k”kh lko] firk & “kadj lko ds ?kj esa Nr Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.808 of 2023 dt.15-06-2026 13/20 rM+idj ?kj ds lh<+h ls mrjdj ?kj esa ?kqalsA bl laca/k esa vkidks D;k dguk gS \ mRrj & ljklkj >qB gSA es iSj ls ykpkj gw¡A Nr ugh rM+i ldrk gw¡A iz”u & vkids fo:) ;g Hkh lk{; gS fd vki mDr frfFk dks lwpd ds ?kj esa ?kqalus ds i”pkr lwpd] lwpd ds firk & “kadj lko] rFkk lwpd ds ek¡& deys”k nsoh rFkk “kSys”k dqekj ds lkFk ekjihV fd;kA bl laca/k esa vkidks D;k dguk gS\ mRrj & xyr gSA eS vfHk;qDrks dks turk Hkh ugha gw¡A iz”u & vkids fo:) ;g Hkh lk{; gS fd mDr frfFk dks vkius lg&vfHk;qDr f”konfgu Bkdqj }kjk lwpd dh ek¡ deys”k nsoh dks iSj idM+us ds i”pkr deys”k nsoh ds lkFk cykRdkj fd;kA bl laca/k esa vkidks D;k dguk gS\ mRrj& xyr gSA iz”u & vids fo:) ;g Hkh lk{; gS fd vkius mDr frfFk dks vU; vfHk;qDrks ds lkFk feydj lkekU; vk”k; ls lwpd dh iRuh lqeu nsoh dk Hkh cykRdkj fd;kA bl laca/k esa vkidks D;k dguk gSA mRrj & xyr gSA iz”u & vkids fo:) ;g Hkh lk{; gS fd ?kVuk dkfjr djus ds i”pkr vU; vfHk;qDrks ds lkFk lwpd ds ?kj yqVikV fd;k rFkk Qk;fjax djrs gq, lwpd ds ?kj ls pys x,A bl laca/k esa vkidks D;k dguk gS\ mRrj & dksbZ ?kVuk ugha ?kVh gSA iz”u & vkids fo:) nLrkosth lk{; ds :i esa izn”kZ% P-1, ls ysdj P-22, rd vfHk;kstu }kjk vfHkys[k ij yk;k x;k gS] bl laca/k esa vkidks D;k dguk gS\ mRrj & xyr gSA iz”u & lQkbZ esa vkidks D;k dguk gSA mRrj & eSa funks’kZ gw¡A 70 lky ds mez esa u rks eS mlds ?kj dk Nr rM+i ldrk gw¡A u gh ?kVuk dkfjr dj ldrk gw¡A” 18. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandan Pasi and Others vs. State of Bihar reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2599 had occasion to review the entire case laws on the scope of the examination under Section 313 CRPC. In paragraph ‘7’ to paragraph ‘7.3’ their Lordships have placed Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.808 of 2023 dt.15-06-2026 14/20 reliance upon the three judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. We reproduce those paragraphs hereunder for a ready reference:- “7. This Court, in many judgments, delineated the scope and object of Section 313 CrPC. The position is no longer up for debate. Even so, we may refer to certain pronouncements for the sake of completeness. 7.1. In Sanatan Naskar v. State of W.B.4, this Court as follows, regarding the scope of the examination under Section 313 CrPC: “21. The answers by an accused under Section 313 CrPC are of relevance for finding out the truth and examining the veracity of the case of the prosecution. The scope of Section 313 CrPC is wide and is not a mere formality. … 22. As already noticed, the object of recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC is to put all incriminating evidence to 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 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 every important incriminating piece of evidence to the accused and grant him an opportunity to answer and explain. …” (emphasis supplied) 7.2. In Indrakunwar v. State of Chhattisgarh5, this Court, through one of us (Sanjay Karol, J.), after consideration of various judgments formulated the following principles vis-à-vis this Section: 4. (2010)8 SCC 249 5. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1364 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.808 of 2023 dt.15-06-2026 15/20 “35. A perusal of various judgments15 rendered by this Court reveals the following principles, as evolved over time when considering such statements. 35.1 The object, evident from the Section itself, is to enable the accused to themselves explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against them. 35.2 The intent is to establish a dialogue between the Court and the accused. This process benefits the accused and aids the Court in arriving at the final verdict. 35.3 The process enshrined is not a matter of procedural formality but is based on the cardinal principle of natural justice, i.e., audi alterum partem. 35.4 The ultimate test when concerned with the compliance of the Section is to enquire and ensure whether the accused got the opportunity to say his piece. 35.5 In such a statement, the accused may or may not admit involvement or any incriminating circumstance or may even offer an alternative version of events or interpretation. The accused may not be put to prejudice by any omission or inadequate questioning. 35.6 The right to remain silent or any answer to a question which may be false shall not be used to his detriment, being the sole reason. 35.7 This statement cannot form the sole basis of conviction and is neither a substantive nor a substitute piece of evidence. It does not discharge but reduces the prosecution's burden of leading evidence to prove its case. They are to be used to examine the veracity of the prosecution's case. 35.8 This statement is to be read as a whole. One part cannot be read in isolation. 35.9 Such a statement, as not on oath, does not qualify as a piece of evidence under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; however, the inculpatory aspect as may be borne from the statement may be used to lend credence to the case of the prosecution. 35.10 The circumstances not put to the accused while rendering his statement under the Section are to be excluded from consideration as no opportunity has been afforded to him to explain them. 35.11 The Court is obligated to put, in the form of questions, all incriminating circumstances to the accused so as to give him an opportunity to articulate his defence. The defence so articulated must be carefully scrutinized and considered. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.808 of 2023 dt.15-06-2026 16/20 35.12 Non-compliance with the Section may cause prejudice to the accused and may impede the process of arriving at a fair decision.” 7.3. In Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi)6 as subsequently approved by a bench of three-Judges in Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh v. State of U.P.7, the Court laid down the following factors: “22. The law consistently laid down by this Court can be summarised as under: 22.1. It is the duty of the trial court to put each material circumstance appearing in the evidence against the accused specifically, distinctively and separately. The material circumstance means the circumstance or the material on the basis of which the prosecution is seeking his conviction. 22.2. The object of examination of the accused under Section 313 is to enable the accused to explain any circumstance appearing against him in the evidence. 22.3. The Court must ordinarily eschew material circumstances not put to the accused from consideration while dealing with the case of the particular accused. 22.4. The failure to put material circumstances to the accused amounts to a serious irregularity. It will vitiate the trial if it is shown to have prejudiced the accused. 22.5. If any irregularity in putting the material circumstance to the accused does not result in failure of justice, it becomes a curable defect. However, while deciding whether the defect can be cured, one of the considerations will be the passage of time from the date of the incident. 22.6. In case such irregularity is curable, even the appellate court can question the accused on the material circumstance which is not put to him. 22.7. In a given case, the case can be remanded to the trial court from the stage of recording the supplementary statement of the accused concerned under Section 313 CrPC. 22.8. While deciding the question whether prejudice has been caused to the accused because of the omission, the delay in raising the contention is only one of the several factors to be considered.” [See also: Ranvir Yadav v. State of Bihar8 and Naresh Kumar v. State of Delhi)9]” 6. (2023) 17 SCC 95 7. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 913 8. (2009) 6 SCC 595 9. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1641 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.808 of 2023 dt.15-06-2026 17/20 19. Taking note of the questions put to the accused in the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in paragraph ‘9’ and ‘10’ as under:- “9. The statements extracted above reveal a sorry state of affairs- an abject failure on the part of the Court in complying with the basic tenets of law. The statements given by all three persons are carbon copies of each other. How such statements can pass muster at the hands of the learned Trial Judge is something which we fail to understand. Out of the four questions asked, directly related to the sequence of events, were only two. The second question was as general as can be, with reference to only the bare allegations, to which an omnibus denial was issued. The third was also of similar nature, saying that it has been alleged and evidenced, and nothing further. This cannot be said to be the putting of every material circumstance. It is equally disturbing for us to see that in the desire to secure a conviction for the accused persons, the prosecutor also let their duty of assisting the Court in conducting the examination of the accused under this section fall by the wayside. The prosecutor is an officer of the Court and holds a solemn duty to act in the interest of justice. They cannot act as a defence lawyer, but for the State, with the sole aim of making the gauntlet of punishment fall on the accused. [See: Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. State of U.P.10] 10. In view of the above observations, we need not delve into the other grounds raised, questioning the concurrent conviction against the appellants herein. On this ground alone, the Appeals are allowed and the matter is sent back to the concerned Trial Court to recommence from the state of the recording of the Section 313 CrPC statements. We may clarify that the remand is limited to the cases of the three appellants before us and our observations herein shall not affect the sanctity of the findings already arrived at, qua the other accused persons. A trial is a function of memory; it is this memory that, when translated into spoken word testimony on oath, becomes evidence, and thus the same is susceptible to the vagaries of time. Keeping in view the fact that the offence is from the year 2016, and while being cognizant of the observations of the Constitution Bench in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P011, we direct the concerned Trial Court to do the needful within four months from the date of the communication of this judgment.” 10. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 351 11. (2024) 6 SCC 267 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.808 of 2023 dt.15-06-2026 18/20 20. It is evident on going through the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the law is well settled by judicial pronouncements that it is the duty of the trial court to put each material circumstance appearing in the evidence against the accused specifically, distinctively and separately. It has been held that the failure to put material circumstances to the accused amounts to a serious irregularity. It will vitiate the trial if it is shown to have prejudiced the accused. 21. In the case of Chandan Pasi (supra), it has been emphatically stated that the questions put to him cannot be said to be the putting of every material circumstance. The role of the prosecutor has also been deprecated as it has been held that in the desire to secure a conviction for the accused persons, the prosecutor also let their duty of assisting the Court in conducting the examination of the accused under this section fall by the wayside. 22. Keeping in mind the judicial pronouncements on the subject when we look at the statement of the accused-appellant recorded under Section 313 CrPC, we find that only a general and vague question was put to the appellant suggesting him that there are evidences against him that on 30.06.2019 at about 1:30 in the night he crossed over the roof of the house of the informant Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.808 of 2023 dt.15-06-2026 19/20 namely Shashi Sao, son of Shankar Sao and entered into the house through the stairs and the mother of the informant was caught by Shivdahin Thakur and the appellant had committed rape on her. The exhibits marked on behalf of the prosecution were not specifically pointed out to the accused. Save and except this general and vague suggestion to the accused-appellant, no evidence in this connection or the material circumstance on the basis of which the prosecution wanted to secure the conviction of the appellant could be brought to the notice of the appellant. In our considered opinion, this has seriously prejudiced the right of the accused to get an opportunity to answer each and every material circumstance if brought to his notice during his statement under section 313 CrPC. 23. We are therefore of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment and order of the learned trial court are liable to be set aside on this ground alone. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. The records of this case are remitted to the learned trial court with a direction to recommence trial from the stage of recording of Section 313 CrPC statement. We further clarify that the remand is limited to the extent indicated hereinabove. Keeping in view the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph ‘10’ of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.808 of 2023 dt.15-06-2026 20/20 the judgment in case of Chandan Pasi (supra), we direct the concerned trial court to do the needful within six months from the date of communication of the judgment and receipt of the trial courts records. 24. This appeal is accordingly disposed of. 25. Let a copy of the judgment together with the trial courts records be sent down to the learned trial court through a special messenger within one week from today. SUSHMA2/Rishi- (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) (Kumar Manish, J) AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 19.06.2026 Transmission Date 19.06.2026