Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Sanjay Kumar vs State Of Bihar on 12 February, 2026
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 9840/2025)
SANJAY KUMAR & ANR. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.15696/2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 17735/2025)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
These appeals arise out of the
judgments dated 06.03.2025 passed by the
Patna High Court in Criminal Appeal (DB)
Signature Not Verified Nos. 1136/2016, titled “Ram Sevak Shah &
Digitally signed by
babita pandey
Date: 2026.02.13
17:46:24 IST
Reason:
Ors. vs. State of Bihar”, and 1160/2016,
titled “Laxman Sah & Ors. vs. State of
Bihar”, confirming the conviction and the
sentences visited upon the appellants,
vide judgments dated 27.08.2016 and
02.09.2016, passed by the learned VIII
Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran
at Motihari, Bihar, in Sessions Trial Nos.
403/2009 and 936/2007 (both arising out of
FIR/Case No. 15/2007 dated 25.01.2007
registered with Police Station – Adapur,
District – East Champaran, Bihar).
The trial court had convicted the
appellants under Sections 302, 147 and 149
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and
sentenced them to life imprisonment along
with payment of fines, coupled with
default stipulations.
Though this Court had earlier
directed the Registry to requisition the
trial court records, being of the opinion
that the aforestated judgments warranted
interference, we are now informed that the
trial court records have not yet been
received. Instead of awaiting receipt of
the records, we deem it appropriate to
resort to the alternative that is
available to us, that is, to remit the
matter to the trial court instead of
undertaking adjudication of these appeals
on merit.
We find from the material placed on
record by the learned counsel for the
appellants that the examination of the
accused under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure Code, 19731, was brief
to the point of being cryptic and was
limited to just three questions. The first
question was as to whether the accused had
heard the statement of the witnesses. The
second question was as follows: –
“There is an allegation against you
that on 24th February 2007 at 06.30
A.M., in village Harpur, police
station Harpur, district East1 For short “the Code”
Champaran, you along with other
accused for the fulfillment of a
common purpose, killed Shivnath
Shah, brother of Suresh Prasad, the
complainant in this Case, by hitting
with sticks, what do you have to say
in this regard?”The third question was as to whether
the accused had something to say in his
defence.
The aforestated three questions were
posed to one of the accused/appellants,
namely, Mahanth Sah. However, the same
format was adopted for examination of the
remaining accused. This is not in dispute.
Needless to state, the aforestated
casual examination of the accused falls
woefully short of the required standard,
as stipulated by law. This Court has
emphasized this point, time and again. We
may refer to the recent judgment of this
Court on this point in “Ashok vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh”2. Therein, a 3-Judge Bench
of this Court observed that it is the duty
of the public prosecutor to assist the
trial court in recording the statement of
the accused under Section 313 of the Code;
if the court omits to put any material
circumstances brought on record against
the accused, the public prosecutor must
bring it to the notice of the court while
the examination of the accused is being
recorded; he must assist the court in
framing the questions to be put to the
accused; and as it is the duty of the
public prosecutor to ensure that those who
are guilty of the commission of offence
must be punished, it is also his duty to
ensure that there are no infirmities in
the conduct of the trial, which will cause
prejudice to the accused.
We may also note the earlier decision
of another 3-Judge Bench of this Court in
“Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade vs. State of
2 (2025) 2 SCC 385
Maharashtra”3, wherein the in pari materia
provision in the erstwhile Code was under
consideration and it was observed that
great care is expected of Sessions Judges,
who try grave cases to collect every
incriminating circumstance and put it to
the accused even though at the end of the
long trial, the judge may be a little
fagged out.
In the light of the aforestated
settled legal principle, we are of the
opinion that incurable injustice was done
to the appellants in the course of their
examination under Sections 313 of the
Code, as no specific questions were put to
them apropos each piece of incriminating
evidence adduced against them. The
judgments of the trial court based on such
inadequate examination of the accused,
therefore, cannot be sustained.
The High Court was also in error in
overlooking this crucial aspect and in
3 (1973) 2 SCC 793
confirming the conviction and sentences
visited upon the appellants.
We, accordingly, set aside the
judgments passed by the High Court and
also the judgments of conviction and the
orders of sentence passed by the learned
VIII Additional Sessions Judge, East
Champaran at Motihari, Bihar, in Sessions
Trial Nos. 403/2009 and 936/2007 (both
arising out of FIR/Case No. 15/2007 dated
25.01.2007 registered with Police Station
– Adapur, District – East Champaran,
Bihar)
Sessions Trial Nos. 403/2009 and
936/2007 shall stand restored on the file
of the learned VIII Additional Sessions
Judge, East Champaran at Motihari, Bihar,
to enable fresh examination of the accused
under Section 313 of the Code strictly in
accordance with the legal parameters
applicable thereto.
As we are informed that the
appellants were on bail, prior to their
conviction and sentencing, they would be
entitled to the same relief pending the
fresh exercise to be undertaken by the
trial court.
The appeals are, accordingly, allowed
in the aforestated terms.
The appellants shall be released on
bail on such appropriate terms and
conditions as may be fixed by the trial
court, pending the exercise to be
undertaken by the trial court pursuant to
this order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall
stand disposed of.
………………….J.
(SANJAY KUMAR)
………………….J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 12, 2026.
ITEM NO.10 COURT NO.12 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.
9840/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order
dated 06-03-2025 in CRADB No. 1136/2016 passed by
the High Court of Judicature at Patna]
SANJAY KUMAR & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 128135/2025 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and
IA No. 197172/2025 – SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE)
WITH
SLP(Crl) No. 15696/2025 (II-A)
SLP(Crl) No. 17735/2025 (II-A)
(FOR ADMISSION AND IA No. 181127/2025 – EXEMPTION
FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 12-02-2026 These matters were called on for
hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRANFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Kumar Vaibhaw, Adv.
Mr. Gautam Khazanchi, Adv.
Mr. Vaibhav Dubey, Adv.
Mr. Bilal Mansoor, Adv.
Mr. Mansoor Ali, AOR
9
For Respondent(s) Mr. Azmat Hayat Amanullah, AOR
Ms. Rebecca Mishra, Adv.
Ms. Vanshita Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Dipesh Singhal, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel, the Court made the following
O R D E RLeave granted.
In terms of the signed order, the appellants
shall be released on bail on such appropriate terms
and conditions as may be fixed by the trial court,
pending the exercise to be undertaken by the trial
court pursuant to this order.
The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed
order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(BABITA PANDEY) (PREETI SAXENA)
AR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed order is placed on the file)10