Section 313 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973

313. Power to examine the accused.

(1) In every inquiry or trial, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court-

(a) may at any stage, without previously warning the accused, put such questions to him as the Court considers necessary;

(b) shall, after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence, question him generally on the case: Provided that in a summons- case, where the Court has dispensed with the  personal  attendance of  the  accused,  it may also dispense  with his examination under clause (b).

(2) No oath shall be administered to the accused when he is examined under sub- section (1).

(3) The accused shall not render himself liable to punishment by refusing to answer such questions, or by giving false answers to them.

(4) The answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial, and put in evidence for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence which such answers may tend to show he has committed.


October, 2018

Cr.P.C., Section 313 - If there has been no consideration at all of the defence taken under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in the given facts of a case, the conviction may well stand vitiated -  The mere use of the word ‘may’ cannot be held to confer a discretionary power on the court to consider or not to consider such defence, since it constitutes a valuable right of an accused for access to justice, and the likelihood of the prejudice that may be caused thereby -   S. 313 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, even if it is not to  be considered as a piece of substantive evidence, not being on oath under Section 313(2), Cr.P.C. - The importance of this right has been considered time and again by this court, but it yet remains to be applied in practice - If the accused takes a defence after the prosecution evidence is closed, under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. the Court is duty bound under Section 313(4) Cr.P.C. to consider the same - The mere use of the word ‘may’ cannot be held to confer a discretionary power on the court to consider or not to consider such defence, since it constitutes a valuable right of an accused for access to justice, and the likelihood of the prejudice that may be caused thereby -  Whether the defence is acceptable or not and whether it is compatible or incompatible with the evidence available is an entirely different matter - If there has been no consideration at all of the defence taken under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in the given facts of a case, the conviction may well stand vitiated -  To our mind, a solemn duty is cast on the court in dispensation of justice to adequately consider the defence of the accused taken under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and to either accept or reject the same for reasons specified in writing -   Unfortunately neither Trial Court nor the High Court considered it necessary to take notice of, much less discuss or observe with regard to the aforesaid defence by the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to either accept or reject it - The defence taken cannot be said to be irrelevant, illogical or fanciful in the entirety of the facts and the nature of other evidence available as discussed hereinbefore - The complete non-consideration thereof has clearly caused prejudice to the appellant - Unlike the prosecution, the accused is not required to establish the defence beyond all reasonable doubt.

(2018)2 SCeJ 1593

*SUPREME COURT E@JOURNAL*

 

Decided October, 2018

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 S. 313  Accused in their replies made under Section 313 Cr.P.C. have not denied their presence in the occurrence  - Appellants-accused  belong to different villages - Their names are found mentioned with their residential village in the complaint which was lodged at the earliest point in time -  PWs have testified about the participation of both the above accused in the occurrence and have identified them also -  Nothing is put in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses either denying their presence or absence of any role played by them in the assembly -  Not even a suggestion is made in this regard - It is also relevant to point out that these accused in their replies made under Section 313 Cr.P.C. have not denied their presence in the occurrence -  Presence in the occurrence place is established  Criminal Trial. (2016)3 PLRSC 815

          Criminal Procedure Code, Section 313 -  The appellant, , failed to explain any circumstances brought out in the evidence and merely denied his involvement in the crime - It was necessary for the appellant to have explained the circumstances appearing against him in the proceedings under Section 313 of the Code. Held We find from the evidence eight circumstances appearing against the appellant. These circumstances are: First motive was against the deceased due to his not agreeing to the proposal of marriage of Kumar with his daughter; Second, the appellant and Kumar, both being the cousins, knew each other very well; Third, both went together to the house of the deceased to invite him for a dinner at Kumar’s house; Fourth, all the three had dinner together at Kumar’s house; Fifth, Murugan died immediately after dinner; Sixth, Kumar gave his confessional statement; Seventh, recovery of weapon and cloths at the instance of Kumar; and Eighth, the dead body was found lying near iron cot where Murugan(deceased) had last dinner with Kumar and the appellant. (2018)2 SCeJ 1042

Criminal Trial - Cr.P.C., Section 313  Accused in their replies made under Section 313 Cr.P.C. have not denied their presence in the occurrence  - Appellants-accused  belong to different villages - Their names are found mentioned with their residential village in the complaint which was lodged at the earliest point in time -  PWs have testified about the participation of both the above accused in the occurrence and have identified them also -  Nothing is put in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses either denying their presence or absence of any role played by them in the assembly -  Not even a suggestion is made in this regard - It is also relevant to point out that these accused in their replies made under Section 313 Cr.P.C. have not denied their presence in the occurrence -  Presence in the occurrence place is established. (2016)3 SCEJ 815

 

PLR Supreme Court

e@journal

Annual subscription Rs. 1000/- (Special price)

DAILY UPDATES  

full text with Headnotes through email / WhatsApp

punjablawreporter@gmail.com / 9463598502