Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010050602020 2026:GAU-AS:14653 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.A./143/2020 SRI DHARANI DEBNATH AND ANR S/O. LT. GOBINDA DEBNATH, R/O. TELIBOSTI, P.O. TELEBOSTI, P.S. HOJAI, DIST. HOJAI, ASSAM. 2: GOPAL DEBNATH S/O. DHARANI DEBNATH R/O. TELIBOSTI P.O. TELEBOSTI P.S. HOJAI DIST. HOJAI ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP. BY PP, ASSAM. 2:SMT. CHAMPA DEBNATH D/O. LT. NARAYAN DEBNATH R/O. TELIBOSTI P.O. TELIBOSTI P.S. HOJAI DIST. HOJAI ASSAM PIN-782435 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I A TALUKDAR, MR A M MONDAL Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR B CHANDA BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA Page No.# 2/7 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER Date : 30/09/2026 (Michael Zothankhuma, J) 1. Heard Mr. I.A. Talukdar, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned senior counsel and APP, Assam, assisted by Ms. R. Saloi, learned counsel for the State and Mr. B. Chanda, learned counsel for the informant/respondent no. 2. 2. This appeal has been filed by the 2 (two) appellants against their conviction under section 302/34 IPC, vide the impugned judgement dated 09/01/2020 passed by the Court of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast-Track Court, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar, in Sessions Case No.38/2017, for causing the death of one Narayan Debnath. 3. The brief facts of the case is that Prosecution Witness-1 (PW-1) submitted an F.I.R. dated 23/05/2016 to the Officer-in-Charge of the Hojai Police Station, stating that around 8.30 p.m. on 22/05/2016, Shri Gopal Debnath (Accused No.1), Shri Dharani Debnath (Accused No.2) and Sri Prasenjit Debnath (Accused No.3), had trespassed into their land. Thereafter, the accused nos. 2 & 3 i.e. Dharani Debnath and Prasenjit Debnath had struck her father on the neck with a dao, causing grievous injury to him. While taking the injured to Hojai Hamm Hospital, he succumbed to his injuries. 4. Pursuant to the F.I.R., which was entered as GDE no. 626 dated 23/05/2016, Hojai Police Station case No. 221/2016 under Section 447/341/302/34 IPC was registered. After the Investigating Officer completed his investigation, charge sheet was submitted against all the three appellants under section 447/34 and 302/34 IPC. 5. The learned Trial Court thereafter framed charge against all the three accused persons under Section 447/34 IPC and Section 302/34 IPC, to which they Page No.# 3/7 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. The learned Trial Court thereafter examined 13 Prosecution Witnesses and after examining the three accused persons under Section 313 Cr. PC, the learned Trial Court came to a finding that the present 2 appellants were guilty of committing an offence punishable under Section 447 and 302 IPC. It however held that the prosecution could not prove beyond doubt the guilt of the accused Prasenjit Debnath and he was accordingly acquitted, by giving him the benefit of doubt. 7. On perusing the evidence adduced by the Prosecution Witnesses, we find that there are several eyewitnesses to the crime in question. However, prior to getting into the merits of the evidence recorded by the Prosecution Witnesses, we find that the learned Trial Court has not brought out the substance of the accusation/incriminating evidence to the accused/appellants separately, at the time of their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C, to enable them to explain each and every circumstance appearing in the evidence separately. 8. The learned Trial Court has taken the evidence of each particular witness as a whole and asked the appellants, as to what his answer would be to the various questions, which has been put together/clubbed into one question. This makes it nigh impossible for the appellants to make a cogent reply/explanation to the numerous questions squeezed into one question. It was the duty of the learned Trial Court to put questions to the appellants, regarding each and every circumstance, appearing in the evidence against them separately, i.e. each and every incriminating evidence should have been made one question. It is not possible for an accused to answer 5/6 questions by way of a single answer, as there could/would be overlapping of the explanation/answers leading to an ambiguous result. 9. We also find that the learned Trial Court has recorded the entire evidence of each witness as one single question, instead of, breaking up the incriminating Page No.# 4/7 facts/evidence into small and separate questions. We also find that there has been a copy/paste method followed by the learned Trial Court, while asking questions to all the accused persons while examining them under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The learned Trial Court has asked all the appellants exactly the same questions and it has also recorded the answers of all the accused persons by way of a copy/paste method, without realizing that the answers made by each of them were the same, which is not plausible. For example, while examining all the 3 accused persons, the contents of Question No. 7 and the answers given by all the 3 accused persons to question No.7 are all exactly similar. This bypasses the rules of fair-play completely, as Accused No. 3, Prasenjit Debnath could not have replied to Question No. 7, by saying that his son was Prasenjit. Similarly, Gopal Debnath could not have called Prasenjit as his son, as Prasenjit Debnath was his brother. 10. The contents of question 7, which was asked to all during examination of the three accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C. and the answers given by all the 3 accused persons, is reproduced herein below as follows :- “P.W. 7, Mahendra Ch. Debnath stated in his evidence that, informant Champa Rani Debnath is his nephew. Victim/deceased Lt. Narayan Debnath was his elder brother. He knows the accused persons. The occurrence took place about on 22/05/16 at about 8:20 P.M. At the time of occurrence he was at temple. Then suddenly he heard halla in front of the house of his elder brother victim Narayan Debnath. Thereafter his came to the house of his brother and in front of his gate he met some persons. When he asked them what happened they told him to go inside to the house. When he went to the house, he saw Mayarani Debnath was lying and his another nephew Jhuma was also sitting near her mother. Then he saw pool of blood on the ground in the court yard of the victim's house. Upon knowing the fact that his brother was taken to the hospital he also went there and came to know that his brother has died. On the next day morning he again went to the hospital and in presence of them police conducted the inquest. He also saw the injury on the neck of his brother Narayan Debnath. Later on he heard that, on the day of occurrence there was a quarrel between you/Prosenjit and one Bapon on the road side. When Bapon was fleeing away through the court yard of Lt. Narayan Debnath, then at that time, Narayan Debnath asked the accused person what is going on. Then at that Page No.# 5/7 time, the accused Dhoroni caught hold of Narayan Debnath and accused Gopal Debnath cut him with Dao. What is your answer? Ans:- On the day of occurrence I met Mahendra Ch. Das at HAMM Hospital at about 10 P.M. I went to HAMM Hospital as my son Prosenjit was injured at that time.” 11. The above makes a mockery of the examination of the 3 accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In the case of Satbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2021) 6 SCC 1, the Supreme Court held that it is a matter of grave concern that, often, Trial Courts record the statement of an accused under Section 313, Cr. PC in a very casual and cursory manner, without specifically questioning the accused as to his defence, as examination of an accused under Section 313 Cr. PC is based on the fundamental principle of fairness, enabling the accused to offer an explanation for the incriminatory material appearing against him, it imposes an obligation on the part of the Court to question the accused fairly, with care and caution. 12. In the case of Nar Singh vs. State of Haryana reported in (2015) 1 SCC 496, the Supreme Court held that while section 313 Cr.P.C. provides a procedural safeguard for an accused to explain the facts and circumstances appearing against him in the evidence, it imposes a duty on the Court to question the accused properly and fairly, so as to bring home to him the exact case he will have to meet. 13. In the present case, the clubbing of several different questions into one single question and the learned Trial Court asking the accused persons to answer the same, has caused prejudice to the accused and in our view has caused a failure of justice. 14. The Supreme Court in Nar Singh (Supra) held that whenever a plea of non- compliance with Section 313 Cr.P.C. is raised, the courses available to the Appellate Court can be as under :- Page No.# 6/7 “(i) Whenever a plea of non-compliance with Section 313 Cr. PC is raised, it is within the powers of the appellate court to examine and further examine the convict or the counsel appearing for the accused and the said answers shall be taken into consideration for deciding the matter. If the accused is unable to offer the appellate court any reasonable explanation of such circumstance, the court may assume that the accused has no acceptable explanation to offer. (ii) In the facts and circumstances of the case, if the appellate court comes to the conclusion that no prejudice was caused or no failure of justice was occasioned, the appellate court will hear and decide the matter upon merits. (iii) If the appellate court is of the opinion that non-compliance with the provisions of Section 313 Cr.PC has occasioned or is likely to have occasioned prejudice to the accused, the appellate court may direct retrial from the stage of recording the statements of the accused from the point where the irregularity occurred, that is, from the stage of questioning the accused under Section 313 Cr. PC and the trial Judge may be directed to examine the accused afresh and defence witness, if any, and dispose of the matter afresh. (iv) The appellate court may decline to remit the matter to the trial court for retrial on account of long time already spent in the trial of the case and the period of sentence already undergone by the convict and in the facts and circumstances of the case, may decide the appeal on its own merits, keeping in view the prejudice caused to the accused.” 15. In the present case, not only has the learned Trial Court committed an error in clubbing together several questions into one question, thereby making it impossible for the accused persons to explain each fact and circumstance appearing against him individually, it can also lead to ambiguity. The learned Trial Court would have to ask simple clear questions to the appellants, on each fact and circumstance separately, to enable the accused to explain/answer the said question clearly. 16. As the manner in which the appellants have been examined under Section Page No.# 7/7 313 Cr.P.C. has caused material prejudice to them, besides the learned Trial Court having copy pasted the same answer and questions made to both the appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. mechanically, the same has vitiated the trial. 17. Accordingly, by following the decision of the Supreme Court in Nar Singh (Supra), we remand the matter back to the learned Trial Court and direct retrial of the case, from the stage of examination of the appellants under section 313 Cr. PC. The learned Trial Court shall thereafter ensure that at the time of putting questions to the appellants under section 313 Cr. PC, the questions are asked in relation to a particular fact and/or circumstance separately. There should not be several questions clubbed into one question. Consequently, the impugned judgment dated 09/01/2020 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hojai, in Sessions Case No. 38/2017 is set aside, only to the extent that the two appellants herein are concerned. The acquittal of the accused Prasenjit Debnath is not interfered with. 18. The learned Trial Court shall make an endeavour to dispose of the case within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 19. Send back the TCR. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant