Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure

Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure

Author: Lipi Sharma

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of empowering the court to look at the accused under section 313 of code of criminal procedure is to satisfy the need of the principle of natural justice audi alteram partem (that nobody should be criticised unheard). This suggests that the accused may be put a question to provide some explanation as regards the incriminating circumstances correlated against him and therefore the court must note of such explanation. During a case of circumstantial evidence, an equivalent is important to make a decision whether or not the series of circumstances is complete.

RAJ KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN, AIR2013

OBJECT OF SECTION 313

The section itself announces the aim of this provision in express language that it’s for the inspiration behind empowering the accused person by and by to clarify any conditions exposure within the proof against him. The purpose of section 313 is:

  • To determine an immediate dialogue between the court and therefore the accused and to put any important implicating piece of evidence to the accused and grant him a chance to answer and explain them.           

SANATAN NASKAR AND OTHERS VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL, AIR2000

  • To check the veracity of the prosecution case. The examination of the accused isn’t a mere formality, the interrogation put to the accused and answers given by him , have great use. The scope of the section 313 of code of criminal procedure is wide and isn’t a mere formality. The thing of noting the statement of accused under section 313 code of criminal procedure is to place all implicating evidence to the accused so as to provide him a chance to elucidate such implicating circumstances appearing against him within the evidence of the prosecution.

SANATN NASKAR AND OTHERS VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL, AIR2010

PROCEDURE FOR EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED

While examining carefully the accused, the court must believe that the inquiries need to be founded on the proof cited by arrangement. The inquiries need to be planned during a clear, legitimate and justifiable manner leaving no ambiguity in addressing the charged person. While watching the alleged offender, courts must reflect the financial and scholarly capabilities of charged and skill to grasp addresses presented to him.

EFFECT OF NON- COMPLIANCE OF SECTION 313

Non- consideration of accused under section 313 of code of criminal procedure doesn’t nullify the entire procedures or instance of arrangement. The person charged of offence can make use for the identical even at the re-assessing stage. It isn’t the sole base for ousting except if the accused person indicated premature delivery for equity.

EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF SECTION 313 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

As the accused isn’t inspected on vow in 313 assessments to elucidate his form or his case against the proof cited by allegation, the statements made by him can’t be taken as a symbol against him. Indeed, even its right of the charged person to stay quiet or to offer any false attachment, which doesn’t tie him or the court isn’t permitted to indict him or such explanations given by him within the assessment.

CASE LAWS

  • DEHGAL SINGH VS STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, AIR2010

The court declared that the statement of the accused under section 313 of code of criminal procedure is put in writing without administering oath. Therefore, it can’t be treated as evidence within the meaning of section 3 of Evidence Act, 1872.

  • BANSAVARAJ R. PATIL VS STATE OF COLLECTOR, AIR2000

In respect to warrant cases which are bothered, it appears that no preference is given to the court in section 313(1)(b). But within the case of above written, the court said that as a general rule, it’s necessary that altogether cases the accused must answer the question put to him under section 313(1)(b)  by oneself remaining present within the court. However, if it continues to present involves undue hardship and enormous expense the court can pass such examination even in warrant cases after adopting a measure to suits the wants of section 313 of code of criminal procedure in a substantial manner.

  • BIBHUTI BHUSHAN DAS GUPTA VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL, AIR1969

The court held that section 313 of code of criminal procedure doesn’t foresee the examination of the counsel in situ of the accused and restate the law laid down by the Apex Court by three judges bench. Therefore, it was later followed in the case of SHIVAJI SAHE BOBDE VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, AIR1973.

  • K. ANBAZHAGAN VS SUPERINTEDENT OF POLICE, AIR2004

In the case of the above written case S.N Varisava J. who provided a majority judgement with Justice Thomas in Basarvavaj, R. Patel case renew the overall rule that the accused must say in response to the questions put to him under section 313(1)(b) by oneself remaining within the court. And only in rare conditions of undue hardship and enormous expense etc. The overall rule of oneself presence are often dispensed with. During this case the court held that the accused was still in position of Chief Manager of Tamil Nadu and there was no unusual situation or conditions like to take up a boring long journey or suffer a huge financial expenditure to appear within the court to response the questions under section 313 of code of criminal procedure. Thus, none of the facts which have haft with deliberation of the court in Basavaraj R. Patel case (Supra), were available within the given case.

  • MOHAN SINGH VS PREM SINGH AND OTHERS, AIR 2002

The court declared that the statement of the accused under section 313 of code of criminal procedure isn’t a substantive piece of evidence. However, it can be used for cherishing evidence led by the prosecution to accept / reject it. Therefore, if the prosecution evidence doesn’t encourage confidence to sustain the conviction of the accused, the inculpatory part of the accused statement under section 313 of code of criminal procedure can’t be the only basis of his conviction. So as there is no oath taken to accused and he is not instigated to cross examination for the statements provided by him. Those statements shall not be treated as evidence as contemplated under section 3 of code of criminal procedure.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, section 313 of code of criminal procedure states that a press release under section 313 of code of criminal procedure, is recorded to satisfy the need of the principles of natural justice because it requires that an accused could also be given a chance to grant clarification of the incriminating content which had come against him within the trial.

Share