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

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

The End of 'Business as Usual': 4 Supreme Court Rulings Rewriting the Rules of Criminal Justice

 1.0 Introduction: The End of the "Routine"

For decades, a certain complacency has been a hallmark of the Indian criminal justice system. A "chalta hai" (anything goes) attitude often characterized routine procedures, from the moment of arrest to the final verdict. This approach, while familiar, frequently came at the cost of individual liberties and true accountability. However, the ground is shifting. A series of forceful Supreme Court judgments is challenging this mindset head-on, signaling a new era where procedure is not just a formality but a fundamental pillar of justice.

Print Page

Safeguarding Liberty: Landmark Supreme Court Criminal Law Judgments 2025

 

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

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

Under which circumstances the court should put questions to accused in his statement U/S 313 of CRPC regarding contents to proved documents?

 Here, it is further to be noted that at this stage we are considering it prima facie, the accused has not taken plea of alibi but has definitely raised the competency of deceased Seema to make or give statement at the time of admission in the hospital and as aforesaid, there are other documents also in respect of which there is absolutely no question framed. Even sometimes the contents of a document proved may amount to incriminating circumstances and, therefore, that should also be put to the accused if conviction can be based or it can be taken as a linking piece of evidence. {Para 16}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.805 OF 2018

Nasib Osman Pathan, Vs The State of Maharashtra

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &

ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, JJ.

PRONOUNCED ON : 19th DECEMBER, 2023

 ( PER : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)

Read full Judgment Here : Click here

Print Page

How to ascertain which question is to be put to accused in his statement U/S 313 of CRPC?

15.2 In Nababuddin (supra) reliance has been placed on the decision

in Raj Kumar vs. State (NCT of Delhi) [2023 SCC OnLine SC 609] by summarizing the law on the point that -

“17. The law consistently laid down by this Court can be summarized as under :

(i) It is the duty of the Trial Court to put each material

circumstance appearing in the evidence against the accused

specifically, distinctively and separately. The material circumstance means the circumstance or the material on the basis of which the prosecution is seeking his conviction;

(ii) The object of examination of the accused under Section 313 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure is to enable the accused to explain

any circumstance appearing against him in the evidence;

(iii) The Court must ordinarily eschew material circumstances not put to the accused from consideration while dealing with the case of the particular accused;

(iv) The failure to put material circumstances to the accused

amounts to a serious irregularity. It will vitiate the trial if it is shown

to have prejudiced the accused;

(v) If any irregularity in putting the material circumstance to the

accused does not result in failure of justice, it becomes a curable

defect. However, while deciding whether the defect can be cured, one of the considerations will be the passage of time from the date of the incident;

(vi) In case such irregularity is curable, even the appellate court

can question the accused on the material circumstance which is not

put to him; and

(vii) In a given case, the case can be remanded to the Trial Court

from the stage of recording the supplementary statement of the

concerned accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure.

(viii) While deciding the question whether prejudice has been

caused to the accused because of the omission, the delay in raising

the contention is only one of the several factors to be considered.”

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.805 OF 2018

Nasib Osman Pathan, Vs The State of Maharashtra

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &

ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, JJ.

PRONOUNCED ON : 19th DECEMBER, 2023

 ( PER : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)

Print Page

Can the Court Infer the Accused's Intent to Commit Murder if They Claim the Right of Private Defence under their statement U/S 313 of CRPC?

 Ext. 96 refers to inculpatory admissions as well as seeks to bring out exculpatory circumstances. The statement has to be read in its entirety. The inculpatory admissions emerging from this statement against the Appellant are (i) his presence at the spot and (ii) sustaining of injuries by the victim and the other prosecution witnesses while the Appellant, as claimed, was attempting to save himself from getting injured. The exculpatory circumstances sought to be established are (i) the Appellant's description of the act complained of as involuntary, which was compelled by inevitable circumstances and not guided by choice and, (ii) sustaining of injury by him in the same transaction. {Para 19}

20. In view of the inculpatory admissions appearing from Ext.96, the trial court, and the High Court while concurring with the trial court, need not have laboured much to convict the Appellant as the person instrumental for the homicidal death of the victim by discussing the evidence led in course of the trial in details. The Appellant's presence at the spot and the victim and the injured witnesses sustaining injury in course of the scuffle could be held to have been established from Ext.96 itself. However, by not looking into Ext. 96 with the other evidence on record, what the trial court omitted to consider is, whether the prosecution was justified in claiming that the offensive act amounted to culpable homicide amounting to murder or whether the Appellant being guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, deserved punishment Under Section 304, Part II, Indian Penal Code. True it is, the trial court considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant that (i) he had "exercised his right of private defence", and though (ii) "he exceeded such right", (iii) the present case at the most would fall Under Section 304, Part II, Indian Penal Code; but, it proceeded to overrule such arguments by relying on the oral testimony of P.W.s 2 to 4. In the process, the trial court failed to appreciate the defence version as spelt out in Ext.96, which appears to us to be plausible. A senior citizen who visits Katol from Nagpur, his place of residence, for collecting rent, having the intention of murder would possibly not attempt to do so in broad daylight and in the presence of witnesses, and that too with a weapon such as a knife. Reading Ext.96 as it is, we do find it probable that there could have been provocation at the instance of the victim, who allegedly indulged in spitting on the Appellant coupled with verbal abuse, whereafter P.W.2 and later P.W.s 3 and 4 sprang into action, resulting in a scuffle where both parties indulged in inflicting injuries on each other resulting in an unwanted loss of life.

22. Be that as it may, we have no difficulty in proceeding to record our conclusions resting on the evidence on record as well as Ext.96, which the Appellant voluntarily filed before the trial court as his response to the incriminating materials appearing in the evidence against him while being questioned Under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, for whatever it is worth. It appears to us to be a fair and proper disclosure of the Appellant's version as to what transpired on that fateful evening. The offensive act committed by the Appellant has to be appreciated in the surrounding circumstances noted below.

23. Though there is no specific admission by the Appellant that he had stabbed the victim or the other injured witnesses, reading of the contents of Ext.96 does evince an act of retaliation spurred by sudden provocation resulting in a quarrel as well as a scuffle which ultimately, most unfortunately, cost the victim his life and left some others injured. The Appellant too sustained injuries in the scuffle and there is evidence on record that one of the injuries was grievous, yet, the criminal law was surprisingly not set in motion to bring to book those responsible for inflicting such injury. It was in a sudden quarrel, which could have been provoked by the victim and P.W.2, that blows followed from each side. Most importantly, the circumstances in which the incident occurred does clearly negate any suggestion of premeditation in mind. That apart, it cannot be overlooked that while the victim was middle-aged, the Appellant was in his late fifties. At the time of the alleged incident, apart from P.W.s 2 and 3, Shankarrao Fartode, Umrao Charde, Ramesh Korde (all three not examined) were present at the spot, as per the version of P.W.2. It is indeed improbable that in the presence of such persons, the Appellant wielding a weapon like a knife would come to the spot with an intention to commit the offence of murder overpowering all of them without any sufficient reason or provocation. In our opinion, the trial court lacked in objectivity by not examining the facts and circumstances as to whether the situation was such as is likely to reasonably cause an apprehension in the mind of the Appellant that there was imminent danger to his body, of either death or grievous hurt being caused to him, if he did not act in private defence. To impute intention to cause death or the intention to cause that particular injury, which proved fatal, in these circumstances seems to be unreasonable.

24. Exception 4 to Section 300, Indian Penal Code ordains that culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The explanation thereto clarifies that it is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault. Four requirements must be satisfied to invoke this exception, viz. (i) it was a sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was done in a heat of passion; and (iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.

25. Taking an overall view of the matter, we are inclined to the opinion that the Appellant was entitled to the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300, Indian Penal Code.

26. The upshot of the above discussion is that this is not a case where the Appellant could be convicted for murder of the victim. His conviction for murder and sentence of life imprisonment are liable to be set aside. It is ordered accordingly.

27. However, we think it proper to convict the Appellant Under Section 304, Part II, Indian Penal Code. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 211 of 2023

Decided On: 03.03.2023

Premchand  Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta, JJ.

Author: Dipankar Datta, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0209/2023.

Read full Judgment here: Click here

Print Page

Whether trial against accused is vitiated if the court fails to consider his written statement filed U/S 313 of CRPC?

  Once a written statement is filed by the Accused Under Sub-section (5) of Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure and the court marks it as an exhibit, such statement must be treated as part of the Accused's statement Under Sub-section (1) read with Sub-section (4) thereof. In view of the latter Sub-section, the written statement has to be considered in the light of the evidence led by the prosecution to appreciate the truthfulness or otherwise of such case and the contents of such statement weighed with the probabilities of the case either in favour of the Accused or against him. {Para 17}

18. This is a case where it does not appear from the records that the written statement (Ext. 96) engaged the attention of both the trial court as well as the High Court. Applying the principles noted above and for the reasons discussed below, there can be no quarrel that non-consideration of Ext. 96, to a limited extent, in relation to recording of conviction and consequently imposition of sentence, has rendered it vulnerable to interference.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 211 of 2023

Decided On: 03.03.2023

Premchand  Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta, JJ.

Author: Dipankar Datta, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0209/2023.

Read full Judgment here: Click here

Print Page

Supreme Court summarizes 10 Important principles regarding statement of accused U/S 313 of CRPC

15. What follows from these authorities may briefly be summarized thus:

a. Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure [Clause (b) of Sub-section 1] is a valuable safeguard in the trial process for the Accused to establish his innocence;

b. Section 313, which is intended to ensure a direct dialogue between the court and the Accused, casts a mandatory duty on the court to question the Accused generally on the case for the purpose of enabling him to personally explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him;

c. when questioned, the Accused may not admit his involvement at all and choose to flatly deny or outrightly repudiate whatever is put to him by the court;

d. the Accused may even admit or own incriminating circumstances adduced against him to adopt legally recognized defences;

e. an Accused can make a statement without fear of being cross-examined by the prosecution or the latter having any right to cross-examine him;

f. the explanations that an Accused may furnish cannot be considered in isolation but has to be considered in conjunction with the evidence adduced by the prosecution and, therefore, no conviction can be premised solely on the basis of the Section 313 statement(s);

g. statements of the Accused in course of examination Under Section 313, since not on oath, do not constitute evidence Under Section 3 of the Evidence Act, yet, the answers given are relevant for finding the truth and examining the veracity of the prosecution case;

h. statement(s) of the Accused cannot be dissected to rely on the inculpatory part and ignore the exculpatory part and has/have to be read in the whole, inter alia, to test the authenticity of the exculpatory nature of admission; and

i. if the Accused takes a defence and proffers any alternate version of events or interpretation, the court has to carefully analyze and consider his statements;

j. any failure to consider the Accused's explanation of incriminating circumstances, in a given case, may vitiate the trial and/or endanger the conviction.

16. Bearing the above well-settled principles in mind, every criminal court proceeding under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 313 has to shoulder the onerous responsibility of scanning the evidence after the prosecution closes its case, to trace the incriminating circumstances in the evidence against the Accused and to prepare relevant questions to extend opportunity to the Accused to explain any such circumstance in the evidence that could be used against him. Prior to the amendment of Section 313 in 2009, the courts alone had to perform this task. Instances of interference with convictions by courts of appeal on the ground of failure of the trial court to frame relevant questions and to put the same to the Accused were not rare. For toning up the criminal justice system and ensuring a fair and speedy trial, with emphasis on cutting down delays, the Parliament amended Section 313 in 2009 and inserted Sub-section (5), thereby enabling the court to take the assistance of the Public Prosecutor and Defence Counsel in preparing such questions [the first part of Sub-section (5)]. Ideally, with such assistance (which has to be real and not sham to make the effort effective and meaningful), one would tend to believe that the courts probably are now better equipped to diligently prepare the relevant questions, lest there be any infirmity. However, judicial experience has shown that more often than not, the time and effort behind such an exercise put in by the trial court does not achieve the desired result. This is because either the Accused elects to come forward with evasive denials or answers questions with stereotypes like 'false', 'I don't know', 'incorrect', etc. Many a time, this does more harm than good to the cause of the Accused. For instance, if facts within the special knowledge of the Accused are not satisfactorily explained, that could be a factor against the Accused. Though such factor by itself is not conclusive of guilt, it becomes relevant while considering the totality of the circumstances. A proper explanation of one's conduct or a version different from the prosecution version, without being obliged to face cross-examination, could provide the necessary hint or clue for the court to have a different perspective and solve the problem before it. The exercise Under Section 313 instead of being ritualistic ought to be realistic in the sense that it should be the means for securing the ends of justice; instead of an aimless effort, the means towards the end should be purposeful. Indeed, it is optional for the Accused to explain the circumstances put to him Under Section 313, but the safeguard provided by it and the valuable right that it envisions, if availed of or exercised, could prove decisive and have an effect on the final outcome, which would in effect promote utility of the exercise rather than its futility.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 211 of 2023

Decided On: 03.03.2023

Premchand  Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta, JJ.

Author: Dipankar Datta, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0209/2023,(2023) 5 SCC 522.

Print Page

Should the court provide copies of questions to be put to accused U/S 313 of CRPC to the public prosecutor and defence counsel and seek their assistance?

22. Before we part with this judgment, we must take a note of sub-section (5) added to Section 313 of CrPC w.e.f. 31st December 2009. Sub-section (5) reads thus:

“313. Power to examine the accused.-

(1) … … …

(2) … … … …

(3) … … … …

(4) … … … …

(5) The Court may take help of Prosecutor and Defence Counsel in preparing relevant questions which are to be put to the accused and the Court may permit filing of written statement by the accused as sufficient compliance of this section.”

23. In many criminal trials, a large number of witnesses are examined, and evidence is voluminous. It is true that the Judicial Officers have to understand the importance of Section 313. But now the Court is empowered to take the help of the prosecutor and the defence counsel in preparing relevant questions. Therefore, when the Trial Judge prepares questions to be put to the accused under Section 313, before putting the questions to the accused, the Judge can always provide copies of the said questions to the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned defence Counsel and seek their assistance for ensuring that every relevant material circumstance appearing against the accused is put to him. When the Judge seeks the assistance of the prosecutor and the defence lawyer, the lawyers must act as the officers of the Court and not as mouthpieces of their respective clients. While recording the statement under Section 313 of CrPC in cases involving a large number of prosecution witnesses, the Judicial Officers will be well advised to take benefit of subsection (5) of Section 313 of CrPC, which will ensure that the chances of committing errors and omissions are minimized.

 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1471 of 2023

Raj Kumar @ Suman    Vs State (NCT of Delhi).

(Before Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.)

Author: Abhay S. Oka, J.

Dated: May 11, 2023.

Citation: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 609.

Print Page

Bombay HC: The court should conceal identity of victim of an offence under Pocso Act while framing of charge,recording of evidence and statement of accused U/S 313 of CRPC

 It is noticed that while framing of charge, recording

evidence, recording statement of accused under section 313 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, name of the victim is disclosed.

Therefore, while framing charge, mentioning name of the victim

should be avoided. Instead he/she should be referred to as ‘X’ or any other alphabet the Court deems ft and proper. While recording evidence if the witness mentions the name of the victim, the Court shall record that “the witness stated the name of the victim but to conceal her identity, her name is not recorded.” And the victim should be referred to in the same manner as is done during the framing of charge.{Para 16}

17. If the witness is a victim, his/her name should not be

disclosed while recording evidence. Her name, place of residence,

age, occupation shall be kept in a sealed cover and in the name

column, she can be referred in the same manner described while

framing charge keeping the address column, occupation column

blank.

18. The same procedure should be followed while recording

statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

While recording statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court shall refer the victim in the manner she is referred to while framing charge.

19. While forwarding remand report to the Magistrate or to

the court dealing with remand, mentioning of name of the victim

should be avoided. Instead she should be referred as ‘X’ or any other alphabet the Investigating Offcer deems ft and proper.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 1 OF 2016

Sangita w/o Yeshwant Tanpure Vs The State of Maharashtra

CORAM : T.V. Nalawade & M.G. Sewlikar, JJ.

PRONOUNCED ON : 19th January, 2021.

JUDGMENT : ( PER M. G. SEWLIKAR, J.)

Print Page

How to appreciate evidence if accused has put forth a plausible version in his statement U/S 313 of CRPC?

 In the present case, the courts below failed to scrutinize the defence version put forward by the appellantaccused in his Section 313 statement. The object of Section 313 of the Code is to establish a direct dialogue between the court and the accused. (See Asraf Ali v. State of Assam, (2008) 16 SCC 328). {Para 25}

26. The purpose of Section 313 CrPC is to provide the accused a reasonable opportunity to explain the adverse circumstances which have emerged against him during the course of trial. A reasonable opportunity entails putting all the adverse evidences in the form of questions so as to give an opportunity to the accused to articulate his defence and give his explanation.

27. If all the circumstances are bundled together and a single opportunity is provided to the accused to explain himself, he may not able to put forth a rational and intelligible explanation. Such, exercises which defeats fair opportunity are nothing but empty formality. Nonfulfilment of the true spirit of Section 313 may ultimately cause grave prejudice to the accused and the Court may not have the benefit of all the necessary facts and circumstances to arrive at a fair conclusion.

28. Such an omission does not ipso facto vitiate the trial, unless the accused prove that grave prejudice has been caused to him. Although the counsel on behalf the accused has not proved any serious prejudice caused to him due to failure of the Court in framing individual circumstances; however, considering the long pendency of the matter and the right of the accused to have a fair and expeditious trial, we propose to proceed and decide the matter on its own merit.

29. It is an established principle of criminal law that the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is upon the prosecution. Where an accused sets up a defence or offers an explanation, it is wellsettled that he is not required to prove his defence beyond a reasonable doubt but only by preponderance of probabilities. [See M. Abbas v. State of Kerala, (2001) 10 SCC 103]. Further, it has been held by this Court in Parminder Kaur v. State of Punjab, (2020) 8 SCC 811 that “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 defence plea”.

30. Moreover, it is the solemn duty of the courts below to consider the defence of the accused. The same must be considered with caution and must be scrutinised by application of mind by the judge. The Court may accept or reject the same, however it cannot be done cursorily. The reasoning and the application of mind must be reflected in writing. However, from the observations extracted above, it is clear that the courts below have failed to undertake this solemn duty. Rather, the evidence of the accused has been dealt by the Court in a casual manner.

31. In the above circumstances, when there is absence of independent evidence corroborating the statements made by complainant, serious doubts regarding the recovery of the alleged motorcycle and the country made pistol, no connection proved between the alleged recovered items and the alleged incident, and the plausible version put forward by the accusedappellant in his Section 313 statement has not been satisfactorily responded to by the prosecution, the case against the accusedappellant cannot be sustained.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 704 OF 2018

 JAI PRAKASH TIWARI Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Coram: N.V. RAMANA; CJI., KRISHNA MURARI; J., HIMA KOHLI; J. 

Dated: AUGUST 04, 2022 

Author: N.V. RAMANA, CJI.

Print Page

Whether the court should ask questions to accused U/S 313 of CRPC in respect of every piece of prosecution evidence?

We have also perused the questions put Under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and answers given by the Accused which are on the record. We do not find that in the present case spirit of Section 313 is forgotten, nor it can be said that the court has not complied with said provision. Sub-section (b) of Section 313 requires the court to question the Accused generally on the case after the prosecution evidence is over. It does not require to re-write hundred pages evidence in another hundred pages to record the statement of the Accused under the Section. It should be borne in mind that entire evidence has been recorded in the presence of the Accused or his counsel, and before he enters into his defence, what is required is that he is generally asked on the case, after the prosecution evidence is over, to explain any circumstances in the evidence against him. It does not require that each and every sentence of the prosecution evidence has to be re-written and read over once again while examining the Accused Under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 31 and 32 of 2008

Decided On: 11.08.2017

 Suresh Chandra Jana and Ors. Vs.  The State of West Bengal and Ors.

Print Page