Supreme Court: Statement Of Accused U/S S. 313 of CrPC cannot Be Used To Complete An Unestablished Chain Of Circumstances

 On an overall consideration of all the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, we find that the evidence led by the prosecution is woefully short of pointing to the guilt of the appellant. The witnesses examined were not sure as to whether the appellant was last seen with the victim as they had their own doubts in that regard. The discovery effected under Section 27 of the Act of 1872 was from a place that was ordinarily visible to others, thus, requiring such discovery to be considered with caution. The DNA report in clear terms refers to the bone extracts being of male origin while the victim was a female. The said bones naturally did not match with the blood samples of the victim’s mother and sister. The report from the FSL also does not take the case of the prosecution any further. There is a doubt created as to whether the brown shawl claimed by the prosecution to be brought by the appellant from his mother was the same as the appellant’s mother had denied that it belonged to her. Therefore, the appellant’s statement under Section 313 of the Code cannot be taken as an additional link in the chain of circumstances. In other words, the chain of circumstances has not been formed on the basis of the prosecution evidence. The Sessions Court, in our view, failed to notice these material factors that were very much available on record. It, therefore, erred in convicting the appellant on the basis of circumstantial evidence.  {Para 10}

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.107 OF 2018

SANTOSH GURUNG Vs STATE OF SIKKIM 

ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J.

Dated: OCTOBER 1, 2026.

Citation: 2026 INSC 1073.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Whether false explanation or non-explanation by accused U/S 313 of CRPC can be used to complete the chain of circumstantial evidence?

 Another circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is, that the Appellant failed to give any explanation in his statement Under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure.

By now it is well-settled principle of law, that false explanation or non-explanation can only be used as an additional circumstance, when the prosecution has proved the chain of circumstances leading to no other conclusion than the guilt of the Accused. However, it cannot be used as a link to complete the chain.{Para 24}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1348 of 2013 +

Decided On: 02.03.2021

Shivaji Chintappa Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Rohinton Fali Nariman and B.R. Gavai, JJ.

Author: B.R. Gavai, J.

Citation: MANU / SC / 0136 / 2021,AIR 2021 SC 1249,( 2021 ) 5 SCC 626,[ 2021 ] 2 SCR 617

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Under which circumstances S 106 of Evidence Act will operate against either a husband or wife staying under the same roof and were last seen together?

 It will also be relevant to refer to the following observations of this Court in the case of Gargi (supra):

33.1. Insofar as the "last seen theory" is concerned, there is no doubt that the Appellant being none other than the wife of the deceased and staying under the same roof, was the last person the deceased was seen with. However, such companionship of the deceased and the Appellant, by itself, does not mean that a presumption of guilt of the Appellant is to be drawn. The trial court and the High Court have proceeded on the assumption that Section 106 of the Evidence Act directly operates against the Appellant. In our view, such an approach has also not been free from error where it was omitted to be considered that Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not absolve the prosecution of its primary burden. This Court has explained the principle in Sawal Das v. State of Bihar,   MANU/SC/0201/1974 : (1974) 4 SCC 193 in the following: (SCC p. 197, para 10)

10. Neither an application of Section 103 nor of 106 of the Evidence Act could, however, absolve the prosecution from the duty of discharging its general or primary burden of proving the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. It is only when the prosecution has led evidence which, if believed, will sustain a conviction, or which makes out a prima facie case, that the question arises of considering facts of which the burden of proof may lie upon the Accused. {Para 21}

22. It could thus be seen, that it is well-settled that Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not directly operate against either a husband or wife staying under the same roof and being the last person seen with the deceased.

Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not absolve the prosecution of discharging its primary burden of proving the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. It is only when the prosecution has led evidence which, if believed, will sustain a conviction, or which makes out a prima facie case, that the question arises of considering facts of which the burden of proof would lie upon the Accused.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1348 of 2013 +

Decided On: 02.03.2021

Shivaji Chintappa Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Rohinton Fali Nariman and B.R. Gavai, JJ.

Author: B.R. Gavai, J.

Citation: MANU / SC / 0136 / 2021,AIR 2021 SC 1249,( 2021 ) 5 SCC 626,[ 2021 ] 2 SCR 617

Print Page

Supreme Court: What will be effect of husband failing to give reasonable explanation for death of his wife in his statement under S 313 of CRPC?

The learned Trial Court also considered the statement of the Accused Under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure which needless to state provides an opportunity to the Accused to explain his stand qua the accusations made against him. In the statement Under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, there is no explanation leave aside any satisfactory explanation in respect of the material evidence against the Appellant. In defence, though an attempt was made to submit that Rupali committed suicide with the help of one chit, the Trial Court on appreciation of the evidence particularly, the handwriting expert's opinion found that the so-called chit had got written by the Accused forcibly prior to the strangulation. The Trial Court also found that the material evidence brought before the Court clearly indicated that the Appellant have caused distraction of the evidence of the offence and provided a false information that Rupali committed suicide. It may not be out of place to state that Rupali after her marriage was residing at her in-laws place. Death of Rupali was in suspicious circumstances and this fact was within the special knowledge of the Appellant being her husband and the Appellant utterly failed to provide a justifiable explanation so as to discharge the burden and this was an additional factor for the Trial Court for holding the Appellant guilty and recording the order of conviction. {Para 20}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1063/2021

Decided On: 21.05.2026

Chetan Dashrath Gade Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Pankaj Mithal and P.B. Varale, JJ.

Author: P.B. Varale, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0507/2026,2026 INSC 522

Print Page

Questions and answers on law (Part 89)

 Q 1:- In a criminal appeal if it is brought to your notice as sessions judge  that all incriminating questions were not asked to the accused by the trial court, what are the options available to you as an appellate court? 

Ans:- Yes. If in a criminal appeal, it is found that all incriminating circumstances were not put to the accused under Section 313 CrPC, the appellate court must first see whether that omission caused material prejudice or failure of justice; the omission does not automatically vitiate the trial.

30-second answer

Print Page

What are 8 practical lapses trial judges often commit while recording the accused’s statement under Section 313 CrPC?

 Here are 8 practical lapses trial judges often commit while recording the accused’s statement under Section 313 CrPC:

• Not putting every incriminating circumstance appearing in prosecution evidence to the accused.

• Asking vague, omnibus, or compound questions instead of short and specific questions.

• Copying deposition mechanically rather than framing the real incriminating circumstance in simple form.

• Using legalistic or confusing language which the accused may not properly understand.

• Recording the statement before all material evidence is complete, then later relying on evidence never put to the accused, such as forensic reports.

• Treating the exercise as a mere formality and not giving a real opportunity to explain.

• In cases with multiple accused, failing to ensure separate and individualized questioning regarding each accused’s role.

• Ignoring the rule that  circumstances  which were not put to the accused cannot be used against him, unless no prejudice is shown.

• One-line legal effect

  The legal effect is that a defect in Section 313 examination becomes serious when it causes prejudice or failure of justice, and in some cases it may vitiate the trial.

Print Page

Guide for Session Judges for appreciating evidence of CA Reports, FSL Report, DNA report and all scientific experts report in Sessions Trials

A forensic report often enters the courtroom with an aura of certainty. Once the Chemical Analyser or FSL states that blood matches, DNA corresponds, or a sample confirms a prosecution theory, the natural temptation is to treat the report as near-conclusive proof. The decision of the Allahabad High Court in Najeeruddin v. State of U.P. is a powerful reminder that criminal courts must resist that temptation. A forensic report may be on record, and may even be formally admissible under Section 293 CrPC, yet it may still be legally unsafe to rely upon if the prosecution has not proved the source material, the chain of connection, and the accused has not been confronted with the incriminating contents under Section 313 CrPC.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Whether Sessions Judge Should Permit Prosecution to Call Chemical Analyser After Closure of Evidence? A Practical Guide on Sections 293, 311 and 313 CrPC

 In criminal trials, few issues create more avoidable confusion than the handling of Chemical Analyser reports. Trial courts often confront a familiar sequence: the prosecution tenders a Chemical Analyser report under Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the report is exhibited subject to objection, the prosecution closes its evidence, and thereafter seeks to call the Chemical Analyser under Section 311 CrPC. The real question is not merely whether the report is admissible, but whether a belated prosecution request to examine the expert should be allowed after closure, particularly when the case has reached the Section 313 stage.

Section 293 CrPC: what it does, and what it does not

Section 293 CrPC permits reports of specified Government scientific experts, including Chemical Examiners, to be used as evidence in inquiry, trial, or other proceeding. The statutory object is procedural convenience: it dispenses with the routine necessity of calling the expert in every case merely to prove the contents of an official scientific report.

Print Page

Kerala HC: Accused Exempted From Personal Appearance including accused residing abroad Can Answer Questions Virtually Or In Writing as per S.351 BNSS

 In Basavaraj R.Patil and others v. State of

Karnataka and others [(2000) 8 SCC 740], while

considering the question whether the accused can be

permitted to file his written submissions under Section

313 of the Cr. P.C, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as

follows:

“23. Section 243(1) of the Code enables the accused,

who is involved in the trial of warrant case instituted on

police report, to put in any written statement. When any

such statement is filed the Court is obliged to make it part

of the record of the case. Even if such case is not instituted

on police report the accused has the same right (vide

Section 247). Even the accused involved in offences

exclusively triable by the Court of sessions can also exercise

such a right to put in written statements [Section 233(2) of

the Code]. It is common knowledge that most of such

written statements, if not all, are prepared by the

counsel of the accused. If such written statements can

be treated as statements directly emanating from the

accused, hook, line and sinker, why not the answers

given by him in the manner set out hereinafter, in

special contingencies, be afforded the same worth.

24. We think that a pragmatic and humanistic

approach is warranted in regard to such special exigencies.

The word shall in clause (b) to Section 313(1) of the Code is

to be interpreted as obligatory on the Court and it should be

complied with when it is for the benefit of the accused. But

if it works to his great prejudice and disadvantage the

Court should, in appropriate cases, e.g., if the accused

satisfies the court that he is unable to reach the venue

of the court, except by bearing huge expenditure or

that he is unable to travel the long journey due to

physical incapacity or some such other hardship

relieve him of such hardship and at the same time

adopt a measure to comply with the requirements in

Section 313 of the Code in a substantial manner. How

this could be achieved?

25. If the accused (who is already exempted from

personally appearing in the Court) makes an application to

the court praying that he may be allowed to answer the

questions without making his physical presence in court on

account of justifying exigency the court can pass

appropriate orders thereon, provided such application is

accompanied by an affidavit sworn to by the accused himself

containing the following matters: (a) A narration of facts to

satisfy the court of his real difficulties to be physically

present in court for giving such answers. (b) An assurance

that no prejudice would be caused to him, in any manner, by

dispensing with his personal presence during such

questioning. (c) An undertaking that he would not raise any

grievance on that score at any stage of the case.

26. If the court is satisfied of the genuineness of

the statements made by the accused in the said

application and affidavit it is open to the court to

supply the questionnaire to his advocate (containing

the questions which the court might put to him under

Section 313 of the Code) and fix the time within which

the same has to be returned duly answered by the

accused together with a properly authenticated

affidavit that those answers were given by the accused

himself. He should affix his signature on all the sheets

of the answered questionnaire. However, if he does not

wish to give any answer to any of the questions he is free to

indicate that fact at the appropriate place in the

questionnaire [as a matter of precaution the Court may keep

photocopy or carbon copy of the questionnaire before it is

supplied to the accused for answers]. If the accused fails to

return the questionnaire duly answered as aforesaid within

the time or extended time granted by the court, he shall

forfeit his right to seek personal exemption from court

during such questioning.

27. In our opinion, if the above course is adopted in

exceptional exigency it would not violate the legislative

intent envisaged in Section 313 of the Code.” {Para 6}

15. In light of the above discussions, I don't find any

legal impediment in permitting the petitioner to answer

the questions under Section 351 BNSS either by adopting

the procedure laid down in Section 351 (5) BNSS and

Basavaraj R.Patil’s case or by getting his answers

recorded via the electronic video linkage under the

Linkage Rules and getting the statement signed as per

the procedure under Rule 8 (16) of the Rules. It would be

up to the petitioner to choose the method.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRL.MC NO. 9203 OF 2025

RAMESHAN Vs  STATE OF KERALA,

PRESENT

 MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2025.

Citation: 2025:KER:77918.

Print Page

Can Partial Circumstantial Evidence Sustain a Criminal Conviction? A Legal Analysis

  The court concludes that last seen theory, extrajudicial confession is not proved. Recovery of weapon under section 27 proved and court comes to conclusion that the answer given under 313 CPC is false. Whether accused can be held guilty?

An examination of conviction possibilities when key circumstantial evidence fails to meet judicial standards

Introduction

Print Page

Supreme court: What are essential pre-requisite for comparing the admitted signatures/ handwritings with the disputed ones U/S 73 of the Evidence Act?

  The High Court fortunately realised the pitfall in the reasoning of the Trial Court. But in an over-anxiety to somehow convict A-7, the High Court adopted a very peculiar route, namely that of undertaking the task of comparing the admitted signatures/ handwritings with the disputed ones Under Section 73 of the Evidence Act. {Para 130}

131. For invoking Section 73, there must first have been some signature or writing admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court, to have been written or made by that person. The Section empowers the Court also to direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures.

132. There was no signature or writing available before the High Court, which had been admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made. The High Court did not also direct A-7 to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling a comparison. Without following the procedure so prescribed in Section 73, the High Court invented a novel procedure, to uphold the conviction handed over by the Trial Court through a wrong reasoning.

133. In fact, the High Court considered Exhibit P-75 to be the document containing the admitted handwritings and signatures of A-7 and compared what was found therein with the handwritings/signatures found in Exhibits P-66, P-76, P-90 and P-92.

134. But what was contained in Exhibit P-75 was never admitted by A- 7 to be in his handwriting. Exhibit P-75 was marked through PW-30, the handwriting expert, and not even by the I.O. At least if the I.O. had identified and marked the specimen writings and signatures of A-7 as Exhibit P-75, it was possible for the prosecution to contend that the specimen signatures stood proved. But the I.O. did not identify Exhibit P-75. PW-30 through whom Exhibit P-75 was marked did not directly obtain the specimen writings of A-7. The statement of PW-30 that the specimen writings of A-7 are in Exhibit P-75 was only hearsay evidence, as he did not directly obtain those specimen signatures. Thus, Exhibit P- 75 never stood proved.

135. Even in the questioning Under Section 313 of the Code, no specific question was put to A-7 whether Exhibits P-66, P-76, P-90, P-92 and P- 75 were in his handwritings and whether they contained his signatures. Therefore, what was contained in Exhibit P-75 was not even admitted signatures.

136. In the absence of either admission or proof of the admitted signatures, the High Court could not have resorted to Section 73 of the Evidence Act.

137. In view of the above, the finding recorded by the Trial Court and the High Court as though A-7 committed forgery and cheating by making applications for the issue of demand drafts in the names of bogus firms is wholly unsustainable.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 2417 of 2010, 16 of 2011 and 2444 of 2010

Decided On: 15.06.2023

A. Srinivasulu Vs. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0723/2023.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Bombay HC: What precautions Session Judge should take while putting question U/S 313 of CRPC to accused?

 I have perused the 313 Cr. P.C. statements of the appellants recorded by the learned Judge. While recording the 313 Cr. P.C. statements of the appellants, the learned Judge did not frame proper questions. The material part of the incriminating evidence adduced by the prosecution was not put to the appellants. In this context, it is necessary to see some of the questions framed by the learned Judge. As stated above, the proof of the identity of the appellants, being the perpetrators of the crime, was the fact in issue. The learned Judge was required to frame proper questions on the basis of the available evidence of the witnesses with regard to their identification. As stated above, the identification of the appellants was established by pointing out their photographs to the prosecutrix. It was not put to the appellants that they were identified by the victim before the Court in a particular manner. The incriminating part of her evidence with regard to the identification of the appellants in the Test Identification Parade was not specifically put to the appellants. It is further seen that the CA reports and the DNA report, being the important pieces of evidence, ought to have been put to them specifically in their 313 statements. Question No. 35 is common for both the appellants. It needs to be extracted. It is as follows:

“Q. No. 35. It has come in the evidence of PW-10 Satish K. Farkade (Ex.97) during investigation he prepared spot panchanama, seizure panchanama. He seized motor cycle, sickle, chapple, godahdi, clothes on the person of victim and muddemal sent for C.A. and obtain C.A. report. What do you have to state about it ?”{Para 29}

30. Perusal of this question would show that the incriminating material in the form of CA reports was put to the appellants in this manner. Perusal of 313 Cr. P.C. statements of the appellants would show that the DNA report was not at all put to them. Even if the appellants had admitted the DNA report, the learned Judge was required to put the same to the appellants in their 313 Cr. P.C. statements. It needs to be stated that, in this case, the appellants have not admitted the DNA report. It is pertinent to mention that, time and again, it has been observed that proper care is not taken while framing the questions in the 313 Cr. P.C. statement of the accused on the basis of the incriminating material. Sometimes, the composite questions are framed. The answer to the part of the question may be in the affirmative and the answer to the part of the question may be in the negative. Such a composite question needs to be avoided. The appellants are the rustic villagers. Similarly, the victim is also a rustic villager. The incriminating circumstances related to the CA and DNA reports had not been put to them. Failure of the learned Judge to follow the provisions of law has caused miscarriage of justice. It has prejudiced not only the appellants but also the victim.

31. In this case, the DNA report has not been put to the appellants. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116 : AIR 1984 SC 1622] has held that incriminating piece of evidence, if not put to the accused in his 313 Cr. P.C. statement, cannot be made the basis of the conviction of the accused. It has to be excluded from consideration. It is to be noted that, while recording the evidence, the learned Prosecutor and the learned Judge adopted a very casual and careless approach. The DNA Expert and the Chemical Analyzer have not been examined. The learned Judge, while examining the accused under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C., did not even care to frame a proper question and put the DNA report to the accused so as to enable them to explain it. This has caused prejudice to the appellants. Similarly, it has proved prejudicial to the prosecutrix, who had suffered the ordeal of a horrible incident. She was not at fault. This has resulted into miscarriage of justice.

In the High Court of Bombay

(Before G.A. Sanap, J.)

Criminal Appeal No. 155 of 2022

Puranlal Sakaru Dhurve. Vs State of Maharashtra, 

Criminal Appeal No. 155 of 2022 and Criminal Appeal No. 352 of 2022

Decided on September 30, 2024

Citation: 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3437.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Bombay HC: What precautions Session Judge should take while admitting the CA reports and the DNA report?

  The Prosecutor has not examined the carrier, who had deposited the samples with R.F.S.L., Amravati. The Investigating Officer did not produce on record the extract of the Malkhana register. Malkhana in-charge was not examined. It is to be noted that the samples had been collected on or before 6th April, 2016. The samples had been forwarded to the R.F.S.L., Amravati, vide Exh.106 on 11th April, 2016. The prosecution has failed to place on record the evidence with regard to the custody of the samples and the care taken to preserve the samples during this period. If the carrier had been examined, then he would have highlighted the relevant aspects. The CA reports, in this case, are very important. The CA reports had been tendered in the evidence at the time of the examination of the Investigating Officer (PW-10). The learned Judge did not pass a specific order under Section 293 of the Cr. P.C. and admitted these reports in evidence. The CA reports are very important. On the basis of the CA reports, a case is sought to be made out that the blood sample and the semen samples matched with the blood samples of the appellants. {Para 24}

26. The Prosecutor failed to examine the Chemical Analyzer, Amravati, to prove the contents of the CA reports. Similarly, he has failed to examine the DNA Expert from R.F.S.L., Nagpur. It is to be noted that DNA evidence is a scientific opinion. It has to be proved like any other document. The prosecution has to establish the link by adducing cogent and concrete evidence from the time of the collection of the samples till the samples are finally analysed by the F.S.L. In this case, the carrier has not been examined. The Chemical Analyzer has not been examined. Similarly, the DNA Expert has not been examined. 

27. In this case, the important witnesses have not been examined. There is no evidence with regard to the packaging, storage, handling, and preservation of the samples to rule out possibility of tampering or contamination. Perusal of the record would show that there is no reason for non-examination of these witnesses. The learned Judge has placed implicit reliance on the CA reports and the DNA report. The complete DNA report is not part of the record. Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Judge that the DNA report fully corroborates the testimony of the prosecutrix is without application of mind. It is to be noted that it was the duty of the learned Judge at least to question the Prosecutor with regard to the evidence to prove the contents of these reports. The record shows that the learned Judge, while recording the examination-in-chief of the Investigating Officer, exhibited the CA reports and the DNA report. I fail to understand as to how the Investigating Officer could be the author of the CA reports and the DNA report. The evidence of the Investigating Officer could not be said to be legally admissible evidence to prove the contents of the CA reports and the DNA report. The evidence of the Investigating Officer could be relevant to the extent of the procedural part with regard to forwarding of the samples, preservation of the samples, and the receipt of the DNA report. In such a case, the learned Judge was required to pass a separate order under Section 293 of the Cr. P.C. and admit such scientific evidence in the case. It is to be noted that the helpless prosecutrix had no control over this. The acceptance of the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the appellants, highlighting the drawbacks and lacunas, would cause miscarriage of justice. The helpless prosecutrix would be deprived of her right to get justice. In my view, this is a very serious matter.

28. Before parting with this subject, I must mention that while admitting the CA reports and the DNA report, without examining the Chemical Analyzer and the DNA Expert, the Court has to pass an appropriate order. First and foremost, the learned Presiding Officer shall insist for the examination of the Chemical Analyzer and the DNA Expert to prove the contents of the reports. The examination of the Chemical Analyzer and the DNA expert, in such a case, can take care of the custody, preservation, and handling of the samples from the time of the receipt till the final analysis of the samples. In my view, this is a very vital flaw in the case of the prosecution, which has been crept in on account of the casual and careless approach of the Prosecutor and the learned Presiding Officer.

In the High Court of Bombay

(Before G.A. Sanap, J.)

Criminal Appeal No. 155 of 2022

Puranlal Sakaru Dhurve. Vs State of Maharashtra, 

Criminal Appeal No. 155 of 2022 and Criminal Appeal No. 352 of 2022

Decided on September 30, 2024

Citation: 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3437.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Whether Session Judge can permit prosecution to show photo of accused to victim for his identification?

Learned advocate Mr. R.R. Vyas took me through the entire record and pointed out the material flaws in the case. Learned advocate submitted that, on the date of the evidence of the informant, the appellants were not produced before the Court. It is submitted that the evidence recorded in the absence of the accused was contrary to the mandate of Section 273 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, “Cr.PC”). Learned advocate submitted that the learned Judge, without insisting for the production of the appellants while recording the evidence of such a star witness, showed some photographs of the appellants from the record to the informant to establish their identification. Learned advocate further submitted that the trial conducted against the appellants was not a fair trial. {Para 8}

 The identification of the accused in the Court has to be strictly proved in such cases. The learned second Judge, who recorded the evidence of PW-4, did not even bother to secure the presence of the appellants. The learned Judge adopted a shortcut method. The learned Judge, instead of securing the presence of the appellants, showed some photographs from the record to the informant. On going through the record, I am shocked that the full-size photographs of the appellants are not on record. The learned Judge has not made a note as to which photographs had been shown to the appellants. It is further seen that those photographs have not even been marked as articles or exhibits.

In the High Court of Bombay

(Before G.A. Sanap, J.)

Criminal Appeal No. 155 of 2022

Puranlal Sakaru Dhurve. Vs State of Maharashtra, 

Criminal Appeal No. 155 of 2022 and Criminal Appeal No. 352 of 2022

Decided on September 30, 2024

Citation: 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3437.

Print Page

What courses are available to the Appellate court if accused takes the plea that the trial court has not asked question to him on vital piece of evidence?

Whenever a plea of omission to put a question to the accused on vital piece of evidence is raised in the appellate court, courses available to the appellate court can be briefly summarised as under:-

(i) Whenever a plea of non-compliance of Section 313 Cr.P.C. is raised, it is within the powers of the appellate court to examine and further examine the convict or the counsel appearing for the accused and the said answers shall be taken into consideration for deciding the matter. If the accused is unable to offer the appellate court any reasonable explanation of such circumstance, the court may assume that the accused has no acceptable explanation to offer;

(ii) In the facts and circumstances of the case, if the appellate court comes to the conclusion that no prejudice was caused or no failure of justice was occasioned, the appellate court will hear and decide the matter upon merits.

(iii) If the appellate court is of the opinion that non-compliance with the provisions of Section 313 Cr.P.C. has occasioned or is likely to have occasioned prejudice to the accused, the appellate court may direct retrial from the stage of recording the statements of the accused from the point where the irregularity occurred, that is, from the stage of questioning the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the trial Judge may be directed to examine the accused afresh and defence witness if any and dispose of the matter afresh;

(iv) The appellate court may decline to remit the matter to the trial court for retrial on account of long time already spent in the trial of the case and the period of sentence already undergone by the convict and in the facts and circumstances of the case, may decide the appeal on its own merits, keeping in view the prejudice caused to the accused." {Para 30}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD

Criminal Revision No. 2979 of 2011

Decided On: 25.08.2017

Yuvraj Singh and Ors. Vs. State of U.P.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Harsh Kumar, J.

Citation:  MANU/UP/2109/2017.

Print Page

Whether Criminal trial will be vitiated if any question is not put to accused U/S 351 of BNSS or 313 of CRPC?

 Under S 351 of BNSS or Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, it is mandatory for the court to question the accused generally on the case after the prosecution evidence has been presented. This provision is crucial for ensuring that the accused has an opportunity to explain the evidence against them. The absence of such questioning can have significant implications on the trial.

S 351 of BNSSS or Section 313 CrPC

S 351 of BNSS or Section 313 of the CrPC allows the court to directly question the accused to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against them. The provision is intended to:

• Ensure the accused understands the allegations and evidence against them.
• Provide the accused an opportunity to explain or rebut the evidence.
• Assist the court in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused.

Print Page

Supreme court : The court should not accept defence taken by accused in his statement U/S 313 of CRPC if he has not cross examined prosecutrix in that respect

We have carefully perused the cross-examination of the prosecutrix. In the cross-examination, the case put to her was that she had voluntarily accompanied the Accused Vijay. There was no suggestion given by the Accused that the sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix was with her consent. The evidence of the prosecutrix in her examination-in-chief that the Accused committed sexual intercourse with her has not been shaken. The case of Accused Vijay made out in his statement Under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was that he was in a relationship with the victim for one year and was paying money to the victim for maintaining a sexual relationship. This case has not been put to the prosecutrix. Even the case made out by Accused Sunil and Ravi that they were keeping a physical relationship with the prosecutrix by paying money has not been put to the prosecutrix.

{Para 10}

11. If the relationship between Accused Vijay and the prosecutrix was really continuing for one year, there was no reason for him to take the prosecutrix to a remote place near a Nullah and have sexual intercourse near a boulder. The same is the case with the other two Accused. The manner in which the prosecutrix was taken initially near the Nullah and after that to another place establishes the case of the prosecutrix of forcible sexual intercourse. Few insignificant contradictions have been brought on record in the cross-examination of the prosecutrix. However, the version of the prosecutrix about the acts of forcible sexual intercourse by the Accused has been hardly tested in the cross-examination.

12. In this view of the matter, the High Court's conclusion was the only possible conclusion based on the evidence on record. Therefore, we find no merit in the appeal preferred by the Accused Vijay.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 2567 of 2024 and 2568 of 2024

Decided On: 15.05.2024

State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Raghubir Singh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.

Author: Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0430/2024.

Print Page

Important Supreme court and bombay HC judgments on statement of accused U/S 313 of CRPC

 

1) Supreme Court : The court must consider any alternate version of events or interpretation of incident stated by accused in her statement U/S 313 of CRPC.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 283 of 2011

Parminder Kaur @ P.P. Kaur @ Soni Vs State of Punjab 

Author :SURYA KANT, J.

Dated: 28.07.2020.

Citation: 2020(8) SCC 811.

https://www.lawweb.in/2024/04/supreme-court-court-must-consider-any.html

2) Bombay HC: The court should not put to accused U/S 313 of CRPC, material appearing in the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses taken by Advocate for accused

 In the High Court of Bombay

(Before S.B. Shukre, J.)

Urvashi Vs State of Maharashtra 

Criminal Writ Petition No. 166 of 2016

Decided on June 20, 2016

Citation: 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 5379 : (2016) 3 AIR Bom R (Cri) (NOC 47) 15 : (2016) 3 Bom CR (Cri) 422.

https://www.lawweb.in/2024/04/bombay-hc-court-should-not-put-to.html

Print Page

Supreme Court : The court must consider any alternate version of events or interpretation of incident stated by accused in her statement U/S 313 of CRPC

 Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 after the prosecution closes its evidence and examines all its witnesses, the accused is given an opportunity of explanation through Section 313(1) (b). 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. Reena Hazarika v. State of Assam, (2019) 13 SCC 289, ¶ 19. 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.{M Abbas v. State of Kerala, (2001) 10 SCC 103, ¶ 10.}{Para 21}.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 283 of 2011

Parminder Kaur @ P.P. Kaur @ Soni Vs State of Punjab 

Author :SURYA KANT, J.

Dated: 28.07.2020.

Citation: 2020(8) SCC 811.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Bombay HC: The court should not put to accused U/S 313 of CRPC, material appearing in the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses taken by Advocate for accused

 On going through the questions, particularly Q. No. 38 and further questions till Q. No. 45, I find that the material which has appeared during the course of cross-examination of the concerned witnesses taken on behalf of the accused, had been put to the accused so as to elicit his appropriate response to the same. This material, it can be seen, has been considered as constituting incriminating circumstances against the accused. It is well settled law that only those circumstances which incriminate the accused can be put to the accused so that he is made aware of the same and is able to give appropriate response. It is the law laid down in Tara Singh's case, supra. The question in this case would be, whether the material appearing in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses taken by the learned counsel for the accused could be considered as something going against the accused and the answer, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant, would be a firm “No”. The reason being that such material though it goes against the accused, is ultimately accepted by him to be so and, therefore, would be out of bound of Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. It would be not covered by the scope of this section and, therefore, there is no need for the Court to bring to the notice of the accused once again such a material. If the accused consciously puts some questions which yield answers revealing incriminating circumstances, same would be in the nature of admitted facts from which the accused cannot keep distance. They may even be unexpected by the accused, being the result of the cross-examination having gone haywire. Yet, he cannot disown them they being of his own making. Such material cannot be said as incriminating from the lens of Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code. Purpose of this section is to enable the accused to explain personally the circumstances appearing in evidence against him and not to resile from his own admissions. The objection, therefore, taken in this regard on behalf of the accused/petitioner ought to have been allowed. But, the learned Judge ignoring the well settled principles of law has rejected the same wrongly by going against the spirit of Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. The impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

{Para 5}

6. In the result, writ petition is allowed. The objection taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused in respect of Question Nos. 38 to 45 is upheld and these questions stand deleted from the statement of the petitioner/accused recorded under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. The trial shall proceed in accordance with law.

 In the High Court of Bombay

(Before S.B. Shukre, J.)

Urvashi Vs State of Maharashtra 

Criminal Writ Petition No. 166 of 2016

Decided on June 20, 2016

Citation: 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 5379 : (2016) 3 AIR Bom R (Cri) (NOC 47) 15 : (2016) 3 Bom CR (Cri) 422

Print Page