Supreme Court Clears Way for Occupation Certificate, Bans Construction on Recreational Plot

Case Title: Chandan Pasi & Ors. v. The State of the Bihar

The Supreme Court set aside the concurrent convictions, holding that non-compliance with Section 313 CrPC vitiates a fair trial. The trial court’s failure to put each material circumstance individually to the appellants caused prejudice. The Court remanded the matter for de novo examination from the stage of recording Section 313 statements, emphasizing this mandatory procedural requirement.

Facts Of The Case:

The case originated from an incident on March 31, 2016, when the informant, Kachan Pasi, along with his father Ghughali Pasi, mother Kouta Devi, and sister-in-law Dharmsheela Devi, were returning from their fields. They were allegedly surrounded by several accused persons, including the three appellants before the Supreme Court—Chandan Pasi, Pappu Pasi, and Gidik Pasi. The accused persons allegedly assaulted Ghughali Pasi with a weapon called a ‘katta’, resulting in his death on the spot. Specific allegations of assault were also leveled against another accused, Joni Pasi @Ravindra Pasi. Following the incident, a total of six persons were tried by the Court of District & Session Judge, Buxar, in Sessions Trial No. 256 of 2016. A seventh accused was determined to be a juvenile and dealt with separately under the applicable law. The trial court convicted all six accused persons, sentencing them to life imprisonment under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, along with other sentences for offences under Sections 448 and 323 IPC. Aggrieved by this decision, the convicted individuals appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Patna. The High Court upheld the trial court’s findings, leading the three named appellants to file special leave petitions before the Supreme Court.

Procedural History:

The procedural history of this case began with Sessions Trial No. 256 of 2016 before the Court of District & Session Judge, Buxar. On March 27, 2017, the trial court convicted six accused persons, including the three appellants, under Section 302/34 IPC and other related sections. Subsequently, on March 29, 2017, the trial court sentenced them to life imprisonment. Aggrieved by this conviction and sentence, all accused persons filed an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the High Court of Judicature at Patna, registered as Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 443 of 2017. The High Court, through its final judgments and orders dated September 4, 2024, and September 26, 2024, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the trial court’s judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Challenging the High Court’s concurrent findings, three of the six convicts—Chandan Pasi, Pappu Pasi, and Gidik Pasi—approached the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petitions (Crl.) Nos. 3685-3686 of 2025. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal on December 1, 2025, and registered the matter as Criminal Appeal Nos. 5137-5138 of 2025, ultimately allowing the appeals and remanding the case for fresh consideration from the stage of recording Section 313 CrPC statements.

READ ALSO:Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Land Deal Fraud Case Citing Civil Settlement

Court Observation:

The Supreme Court made critical observations regarding the fundamental requirements of a fair trial, particularly emphasizing that one of the non-negotiable requirements is that accused persons must have ample opportunity to dispel the prosecution’s case against them. The Court observed that this opportunity manifests through adequate representation, the ability to call defense witnesses, and crucially, the occasion to answer each allegation against them in their own words under Section 313 CrPC. Referring to settled principles from judgments like Sanatan Naskar v. State of W.B. and Indrakunwar v. State of Chhattisgarh, the Court observed that the object of Section 313 CrPC is to establish a direct dialogue between the court and the accused, putting all incriminating evidence to them so they may explain such circumstances. The Court further observed that this process is not a mere procedural formality but is based on the cardinal principle of natural justice, audi alterum partem. Examining the statements recorded by the trial court, the Court observed a sorry state of affairs and an abject failure in complying with basic legal tenets, noting that the statements of all three appellants were carbon copies of each other with only two generalized questions asked about the sequence of events. The Court also observed with equal disturbance that the prosecutor failed in their duty as an officer of the court to assist in conducting the examination properly, reminding that prosecutors hold a solemn duty to act in the interest of justice rather than solely aiming to secure punishment.

Final Decision & Judgement:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by Chandan Pasi, Pappu Pasi, and Gidik Pasi, setting aside the concurrent judgments of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and the High Court. The Court held that the ground of non-compliance with Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was sufficient to vitiate the proceedings against the appellants, and therefore, it did not delve into other grounds raised challenging the concurrent convictions. The matter was remanded back to the concerned Trial Court to recommence the proceedings from the stage of recording the statements under Section 313 CrPC. The Court clarified that the remand was limited strictly to the cases of the three appellants and that its observations would not affect the findings already arrived at regarding the other convicted accused persons. Recognizing that the offense occurred in 2016 and being mindful of the observations made by the Constitution Bench in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P., the Supreme Court directed the concerned Trial Court to complete the necessary proceedings within four months from the date of communication of this judgment. The Registrar (Judicial) was directed to communicate the judgment to the Registrar General of the Patna High Court, who would then forthwith communicate it to the concerned court for necessary action and compliance.

Case Details:

Case Title: Chandan Pasi & Ors. v. The State of the Bihar
Citation: 2025 INSC 1371
Criminal Appeal No.: Criminal Appeal No(s). 5137-5138 of 2025 
Date of Judgment: December 01, 2025
Judges/Justice Name:  Justice Sanjay Karol and  Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Download The Judgement Here

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *