Sec 313 crpc. SUPREME COURT: SECTION 313 CRPC NOT EMPTY FORMALITY, CIRCUMSTANCES MUST BE EXPLAINED TO ACCUSED 2022-10-20
Sec 313 crpc Rating:
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in India deals with the examination of the accused by the court. This section provides for the court to examine the accused in order to clarify any doubts that may arise during the trial and to determine the truth or falsehood of the allegations made against the accused.
Under this section, the court has the power to examine the accused in order to determine the truth or falsehood of the allegations made against him or her. The examination is conducted in the presence of the accused, and the accused is given an opportunity to cross-examine any witness or produce any evidence in his or her defense.
The examination of the accused is an important step in the criminal justice process, as it allows the accused to present his or her side of the story and provide evidence in support of his or her defense. It is also an opportunity for the court to assess the credibility of the accused and to determine whether the allegations made against him or her are true or false.
The examination of the accused is conducted in accordance with the provisions of the CrPC, and the accused is entitled to legal representation during the examination. The examination is conducted in a manner that is fair and just, and the accused is given an opportunity to present his or her case fully and without any undue influence or pressure.
In conclusion, Section 313 of the CrPC is an important provision that ensures the fair and just examination of the accused in a criminal trial. It is an essential part of the criminal justice process, and plays a vital role in ensuring that the accused is given a fair and unbiased hearing.
Section 313 CrPC
Landmark judgments The Supreme Court in a recent judgment delivered on 26 thAugust 2019, considered the rights of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For instance, the SC in evidence against them At this stage, a distinction between false explanations and silence must be addressed. Such an opportunity being given to the accused is part of a fair trial. Until and unless the right of silence of the accused is safeguarded and entrenched into the procedures of criminal administration, any false explanation provided by the accused must be presumed to be driven by fear, panic, or ignorance. An evasive answer the court stated to a question concerning a fact adduced in evidence might aid the court in appreciating the evidence better. She further filed an application under Section 205 of CrPC for her dispense and under Section 313 1 b for dispense of examination.
HC: Sec 313 CrPC Constitutional Right and procedural safeguard to enable accused to defend himself against incriminating evidence [Read Judgement]
The excessive solicitude reflected in the attitude that a thousand guilty men may go out, but one innocent martyr shall not suffer is a false dilemma. The primary interest of the section lies in updating the accused with every piece of evidence which can be used against him. As Ronald Dworkin has stated, the presumption of innocence is the fundamental right of an innocent person not to be convicted. The court has the power if it thinks fit that the witness is essential for the case or if it thinks that it can be a material witness. The court has been vacillating in its stance with respect to allowing adverse inferences to be deduced or not from the silence of the accused. There are various case laws to understand this section, some of them are discussed here below :- Keya Mukherjee v.
Section 313 CrPC: Inculpatory Material As Not Put To The Accused Must Be Eschewed: SC [Read Judgment]
To do so otherwise would not only interfere with the dignity and expressive freedom of the accused, but also the fairness of trial. However, the value and relevance of the evidence itself were in question when an appeal was made before the Apex Court. The jurisprudence is, then, not only internally contradictory, but violative of accepted legal standards, including that statements under §313 do not constitute evidence. The Supreme Court also relied on two precedents. It was also noted that the Trial Court faltered in its duty in the examination. In Ramnaresh and ors. The nominal title of the section suggests that it empowers the court to examine the accused.
SUPREME COURT: SECTION 313 CRPC NOT EMPTY FORMALITY, CIRCUMSTANCES MUST BE EXPLAINED TO ACCUSED
The learned judge of the High Court reduced the sentence to 5 years. The objective is to secure a fair trial and an opportunity of hearing for the accused. . Thus this is wherein Section 313 Cr. The word "may" in Clause a of Sub-section 1 in Section 313 of the Code indicates that even if the court does not put any question under that clause the accused cannot raise any grievance about it.
Therefore, the requirement of Section 313 CrPC is that the accused must be explained the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him so that accused can offer an explanation. In the High Court, the party gave the application under sections 406 and 311. It ought to be noted that the examination of an accused under Section 313, CrPC cannot be treated as a mere procedural formality, as it is based on the fundamental principle of fairness. The Supreme Court in the case Kalicharan vs State of Uttar Pradesh observed while questioning an accused under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, he must explain the circumstances which are appearing in the evidence against him. Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code uses the expression " to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence ". However, despite all the above if the court is satisfied the interest of justice is so required in that case then the court shall allow application but the right to rebuttal should be given to the opposite party.
Section 313 CrPC, Audi Alteram Partem, and the Rights of the Accused
Ensuring the accused is not governed by fear of perjury when delivering his account of the case. In Munish Mubar v. In the pretext, while examining the section, the linguistics suggests that it is limited to the inherent power of the court to question the suspect, however through a layered understanding which is also based upon certain judgments from the Apex Court, one can understand the underlying conscience of the principles of fair chance and right to be heard in a courtroom. Interaction between Article 20 3 and §313 The right to silence is a principle of common law, Article 20 3 protects an accused from being compelled to testify against himself. Recently, the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the rights of the accused enshrined under Section 313 in a judgement delivered on 26 August 2019 in the case of Samsul Haque vs State of Assam.
Section 313 CrPC the fundamental principle of fairness
Section 313 4 says that the answers given by the accused can not be considered in that case as evidence but can be considered as evidence in another trial or inquiry which deemed that he has committed. It is a rule of fair play and natural justice. The Supreme Court, however, noted that only two questions were put to the accused in his statement under Section 313, and called it perfunctory. In a situation where the accused exercises his or her right to silence at trial, the Crown need only prove the case to some point short of beyond a reasonable doubt, and the failure to testify takes it over the threshold. The omission of the same would not by itself, nullify the order of the court. It is also observed that the section does not envisage the examination of the Counsel on behalf of the accused. The questions should relate to the whole case or any specific part if required.
As is implicit, framers of the 1972 code did not envisage the drawing of inferences against the silence of the accused with respect to any incriminating evidence. With respect to the testimonies of the prosecution witness, the Bench observed that concerning the alleged incident, there were no material contradictions, and the testimonies were consistent. The accused must be questioned separately about each material circumstance which is intended to be used against him. It was held that many of the circumstances put forward were irrelevant and rather overlapped with each other. Origin Section 313 Cr.
Critical analysis of Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Therefore, it is required that each material circumstance should be put simply and separately in a way that an illiterate person can appreciate and understand. The answers given during examination of accused under subsection 1 may be put in evidence and taken into consideration, that the evidence can be any for the accused or against the accused, for the inquiry or for the trial, for the offence which tends to show by the answers of accused. Then the SC took suo-moto action and punished Zaheera for forgery under section 193. For example, confessions made pursuant to inter alia to protect the accused from torture and other encroachments upon bodily integrity. For this purpose, the accused has to file with the court an affidavit sworn-in by himself that he may be allowed to answer the questions without physical presence in the court due to justifiable reasons.
Legislative intent behind Section 313 The legislative intent behind drawing adverse inferences may be established by contrasting Section 313 of Crpc with Section 342 of the code of 1898. In Raj Kumar Singh and Raju v. Furthermore if any element of completion is brought in through the mechanism of oath the spontaneity of the statement of accused would be lost. Accordingly, the court allowed the appeal and has acquitted the accused. In other words, it provides a right of silence to the accused. Further in Ajai Singh v.