Significance of Examination of the Accused under Section 313 of the Code
- Section 313 of the Code gives the trial Court a power of examination of the accused before the Court. Under this section, the accused is given an opportunity to explain any circumstance appearing in evidence against him.
- This opportunity given to the accused has been held to be part of a fair trial. In State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh (1992) 3 SCC 700, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that it is the duty of the trial court to make the benefit of Section 313 available to the accused:
Patna High Court D. REF. No.3 of 2018 dt. 20 -10-2020
48/60
"50. Section 313 of the Code is a statutory provision and embodies the fundamental principle of fairness based on the maxim audi alteram partem. It is trite law that the attention of the accused muse be specifically invited to inculpatory pieces of evidence or circumstances laid on record with a view to giving him an opportunity to offer an explanation if he chooses to do so. The section imposes a heavy duty on the court to take great care to ensure that the incriminating circumstances are put to the accused and his response solicited. The words "shall question him" clearly bring out the mandatory character of the clause and cast an imperative duty on court and confer a corresponding right on the accused to an opportunity to offer his explanation for such incriminating material appearing against him.
...Therefore, no matter how weak or scanty the prosecution evidence is in regard to a certain incriminating material, it is the duty of the Court to examine the accused and seek his explanation thereon."
(emphasis supplied)
- In the case of Basavaraj R Patil v. State of Karnataka (2000) 8 SCC 740, the Hon'ble Apex Court further explained the obligation of the trial courts vis-a-vis Section 313 of the Code, by observing that:
"20. ...The word 'may' in clause (a) of sub-section (1) in Section 313 of the Code indicates, without any doubt, that even if the court does not put any question under that clause the accused cannot raise any grievance for it. But if the court fails to put the needed question under clause (b) of the sub-section it would result in a handicap to the accused and he can legitimately claim that no evidence, without affording him the opportunity to explain, can be used against him. It is now well settled that a circumstance about which the accused was not asked to explain cannot be used against him." (emphasis supplied)
Patna High Court D. REF. No.3 of 2018 dt. 20 -10-2020
49/60
- In Lallu Manji v. State of Jharkhand (2003) 2 SCC 401, the Hon'ble Apex Court stated that where opportunity under Section 313 of the code was not afforded to the accused, the incriminating pieces of evidence available in prosecution evidence could not be relied on for the purpose of recording the conviction of the accused persons. In Naval Kishore Singh v. State of Bihar (2004) 7 SCC 502, while upholding that Section 313 constituted a part of fair trial of the accused, the Court held that the High Court could very well remit the case to the Sessions Court for proper examination. This has also been held in Raj Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2013) 5 SCC 722, Nav Singh v. State of Haryana (2015) 1 SCC 496.
- Most recently a three judge bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand (2020) SCC On Line SC 779 has held that:
"9. It stands well settled that circumstances not put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be used against him, and must be excluded from consideration. In a criminal trial, the importance of questions put to an accused are the basic principles of natural justice as it provides him the opportunity not only to furnish his defense, but also to explain the incriminating circumstances against him.
- In Parminder Kaur v. State of Punjab 2020 SCC Online SC605, The Hon'ble Apex Court has gone as far to state, in relation of Section 313 of the Code, that:
Patna High Court D. REF. No.3 of 2018 dt. 20 -10-2020
50/60
"21. 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 defence, could endanger the conviction itself " However, it is clarified that the accused in not per se entitled for acquittal on ground of non-compliance with mandatory provision of Section 313. The accused must show that some was cause or likely to be caused to him from the error or omission in compliance with the provisions of the Code. The non- compliance with Section 313 would vitiate the trial if material prejudice were caused to the accused. Where important incriminating circumstances were not put to the accused during examination under Section 313, it was held that the prosecution could not place reliance on the piece of evidence. [Kuldip Singh v. State of Delhi (2003) 12 SCC 528, Paramjeet Singh v. State of Uttarakhand (2010) 10 SCC 439, Nav Singh v. State of Haryana (2015) 1 SCC 496, Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh (2017) 11 SCC 195]
WordPress.com
