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