Murder conviction set aside as Jharkhand HC flags trial questioning in English

AI generated image used for representative purposeNEW DELHI: Can a murder conviction be upheld if an accused was not properly questioned about the evidence against him during the trial? The Jharkhand high court has ruled that an accused must get a fair opportunity to explain the circumstances used against him, setting aside a man's murder conviction after finding serious lapses in how his statement was recorded.In its October 1, 2026, judgment, the high court acquitted a man who had been sentenced to life imprisonment for allegedly drowning a woman in a well. The court found that the illiterate accused had been questioned in English without any record showing that the questions and answers were translated and explained to him in a language he understood.Why did the man challenge his murder conviction?As per the court order, the case arose from an incident on February 26, 2009, when the accused allegedly jumped into a well while holding a woman and pushed her underwater. The woman's husband also jumped into the well but survived after villagers helped him get out but the woman died.The prosecution alleged that the incident was planned because of a land dispute. Police registered a murder case and filed a chargesheet under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with murder.In April 2018, a sessions court convicted the accused and sentenced him to life imprisonment, along with a fine of Rs 20,000. He challenged the conviction before the high court.His counsel argued that the prosecution's statements contained contradictions and the deceased's body had no injuries. The state maintained that eyewitness accounts and medical evidence supported the prosecution's case.Why did the high court find the trial unfair?The division bench of Justice Ananda Sen and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava examined how the trial court recorded the accused's statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).This provision requires the court to give an accused an opportunity to explain circumstances in the prosecution's evidence that may be used against him. The questioning is an important safeguard in a criminal trial and not just a formality.The high court noted that the accused was an illiterate villager and that his thumb impression appeared on the statement. The questions and answers had been recorded in English, but the record did not show that they had been translated into his mother tongue or explained to him in that language.“This is a serious lapse in the trial, and it goes to the root of the matter and shakes the edifice of a fair trial in this case,” the court said.The court also questioned an endorsement showing that the statement was recorded on July 22, 2016, but the printout and the accused's thumb impression were obtained the next day because of a power failure. It said the accused had not been made to understand the document's contents.“A person who doesn’t even know how to read, write, or understand English should not be asked any questions in that language,” the bench further added.The bench also examined the prosecution's evidence before deciding whether to send the case back to the trial court. It found contradictions in the informant's account of where he was standing when the accused allegedly caught the deceased. The informant also said the water in the well was three feet deep, raising questions about how the woman could have been forcibly drowned in those conditions.The medical evidence recorded no external or internal mechanical injuries on the woman's body, despite witnesses claiming she had been injured. The court also noted that the investigating officer denied visiting the spot and the officer who recorded witness statements was not examined.The bench concluded that these gaps, combined with the failure to properly question the accused, undermined the prosecution's case.It held that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The high court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and life sentence, and directed the man's release if he was not required in any other case.