Chandigarh, Jan. 20 -- Four years after a Jhajjar man was awarded death sentence by a trial court in connection with the rape and murder of a five-year-old, the Punjab and Haryana high court (HC) has quashed the order and remanded back the case for a "re-trial over procedural irregularities." Accused Vinod, 32, a plumber was awarded death sentence by the Jhajjar trial court on December 21, 2021 for "raping and murdering" the minor daughter of his tenant, a migrant labourer. According to the allegations, Vinod had kidnapped the girl from her house on December 20, 2020 and took her to his house, a few meters away from tenant's accommodation, where he raped her under the influence of liquor. The girl was found dead a few hours later when the police had reached the spot. After being awarded the death sentence, he had filed an appeal in HC. Also the matter was sent by the trial court for confirmation, as mandated in law in view of death sentence. The bench of justice Anoop Chitkara and justice Sukhvinder Kaur said while dictating the judgment the court noticed various "flaws" in the recording of the statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, 1973. The statements of the victim's father and the mother were recorded, however, these were not put to the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC. The DNA report of the FSL was also not put to the accused. Section 313 of CrPC mandates that the accused must be explained the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him so that the accused can offer an explanation. It confers a valuable right upon an accused to establish his innocence and can well be considered beyond a statutory right, as a constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. "..This report is the most crucial document, and if it is read in evidence without affording an opportunity to the accused .to explain the same, it is most likely to cause prejudice to the convict, Vinod. ..as per the evidence, accused Vinod was under the noticeable influence of alcohol; however, in the questionnaire ..the toxicology report was not put to the accused," the court noted. "The manner in which the entire incriminating circumstances were put to the accused is contrary to the spirit of Section 313 of the CrPC, 1973," the court said, adding that the entire long testimony of the girl's father was put to accused at once and at the end of it, it was stated that mother of the girl also deposed in similar terms. ".to answer such long questions would be incomprehensible for ordinary people. .this was contrary to the requirement of Section 313 CrPC, 1973," the court observed. The court added that the accused has a right to examine defence evidence. "And the evidence that comes in defence, if any, would also need to be analysed and appreciated in appeal. Thus, the only option available with this court to do justice to the accused and the victim and her family is to remand the case back to the trial court to begin the trial from the stage of recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC," the court said, directing that the trial court would put all the incriminating evidence to the accused by making small questions as per the facts and evidence and afford him an opportunity examine the same....