Supreme Court: The court must consider written statement filed by accused U/S 313 of CRPC in the light of prosecution evidence

 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,(2023) 5 SCC 522.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

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: Procedure to be followed by Criminal court if accused is unable to remain present before the court for recording his statement U/S 313 of CRPC in warrant or session trial

 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.

23. 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?

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. 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.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 869 of 2000

Decided On: 11.10.2000

 Basavaraj R. Patil   Vs.   State of Karnataka 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K.T. Thomas, R.P. Sethi and S.N. Variava, JJ.

Citation: MANU/SC/0632/2000: AIR 2000 SC 3214.

Authored By : K.T. Thomas, R.P. Sethi

Print Page

Whether accused can be furnished with questions that may be asked U/S. 313 CrPC before filing written statement?

There is nothing under Sub-Section 5 of Section 313 Cr.P.C which prevents the accused to submit to file written statement even after being examined orally by the Court. As mentioned above the provisions of Section 313 Cr.P.C have been incorporated mainly to provide ample opportunity to the accused to explain himself and to prove his innocence in the light of the incriminating evidences which have been adduced against him during the examination of prosecution witnesses. This opportunity to explain himself is in addition to the right of the accused to adduce his own defence witness under Section 233 or Section 243 Cr.P.C as the case may be. The legislature by inserting Sub-section 5 to Section 313 Cr.P.C intended to facilitate furnishing of answers to the questions put by the Court to the accused even when the accused is not physically present in the Court by filing written statement. It is however, not restricted only to such cases where the accused is for any reason not able to present at the Court. There is nothing in the section or any other provision under the code which debars submission of written statement by an accused who is already present in the Court to face the questions of the Court. Therefore, this Court is of the view that if any accused desires to file a written statement to the questions put by the Court, he cannot be denied this right. As already mentioned above, under Section 243(1) of the Cr.P.C, the accused who is involved in a trial of warrant case instituted on police report can submit any written statement before the magistrate. Therefore, permitting an accused to submit his written statement even at the time of accused examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C cannot be said to be an alien concept.

36. Consequently, if an accused has a right to file a written statement at the time of examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C as a corollary, it follows that the accused would have the right to be furnished with the questions in advance so that he can submit his written statement. It is only after the accused has been furnished with the questions of the Court that he can file his written statement. This Court is, accordingly, of the view that furnishing of questions prepared by the Court to the accused to enable the accused to file his written statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C should be normally allowed by the trial Court, unless, the Court is of the view that such request has been made to delay the trial or is vexatious and not warranted under the circumstances, as it is the discretion the Court.

37. In fact, the questions that are to be put by the Court are to be relevant to the issues involved in the trial and related to the incriminating materials and evidences already adduced against the accused and on record, and hence no prejudice can be said to be caused to anybody by disclosing the questions prepared by the Court to the accused in advance so that he can file his written statement.

38. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the learned Special Judge ought to have furnished copies of the questions prepared by the Court which were put to the accused so as to enable him to file his written statement in answer to the said questions.

39. In the present case, it has been noted that the accused Petitioner has been already examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and as such he is already aware of the questions put to him by the Court. As such, he would be at liberty to file his written statement to the questions already put by the Court to him irrespective of the oral answers the accused has already given to the Court.

40. For the reasons discussed above, this Court holds that ordinarily, an accused is entitled to be furnished in advance, if he makes a request, of the questions to be put by the Court for the purpose of accused examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C and he can file his written statement in addition to any oral answers given before the Court which request can be declined by the Court if the same has been done to delay the trial or is vexatious or for such germane reasons.
In the High Court of Manipur at Imphal

(Before N. Kotiswar Singh, A.C.J)

Shri Langpoklakpam Kiranjit Singh,v.

The State of Manipur

Cril Petition No. 21 of 2017

Decided on November 7, 2017, 

Citation:2017 SCC OnLine Mani 118

Print Page