S. 313 CrPC

CrPC  , Section 313 - Failure to refute Section 313 CrPC statement - Any alternate version of events or interpretation proffered by the accused must be carefully analysed and considered by the trial Court in compliance with the mandate of Section 313(4) -  Such opportunity is a valuable right of the accused to seek justice and defend oneself –  Failure of the trial Court to fairly apply its mind and consider the defence, could endanger the conviction itself -  Unlike the prosecution which needs to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the accused merely needs to create reasonable doubt or prove their alternate version by mere preponderance of probabilities -  Thus, once a plausible version has been put forth in defence at the Section 313 CrPC examination stage, then it is for the prosecution to negate such defense plea - IPC, 1860 (XLV of 1860),   Section 366A and 506. #2020 SCeJ 1139 


SC e@Journal

Only Rs 1000/- per annum

Click on subscribe


Held, the alternate version given by the appellant could not be lightly brushed aside. Her two ­part defence, put succinctly, was that first there was no male tenant at all and no one except for her child and mother lived with her, and second, that she was being falsely implicated as vengeance for filing a rape complaint against one Bhola Singh with whom the prosecutrix’s father used to work.  It is revealed that a rape complaint had indeed been made by the appellant against Bhola Singh approximately seven months previous to the present incident. Not only did she face difficulties in registering an FIR of rape with the police, but she also had to take pains in filing a private complaint and prosecuting the case against such third party. In fact, the effect of these proceedings was in line with the appellant’s defence, for in that rape trial the trial Court drew a damning observation against her character (calling her a child trafficker) owing to these proceedings. Lastly, DW­1, who lived in the neighbourhood of the parties, both supported the appellant’s claim that there was no male tenant in her home and created sufficiently reasonable connection between Bhola Singh and the prosecutrix’s father by volunteering that PW­2 was residing in Bhola Singh’s premises. Thus, the trial Court’s analysis of the appellant’s Section 313 defence ought to have been deeper, before concluding it as being false or untrustworthy. #2020 SCeJ 1139 

Write a comment

Comments: 1
  • #1

    naveenchopra895@gmail.com (Saturday, 01 August 2020 03:14)

    Want to give it a try

Register SCeJ  Free Updates*

Supreme Court e@journal

Subscribe or take a 4 week FREE trial 

Note: Please fill out the fields marked with an asterisk.