Scribd
Upload
161 views2 pages

Sec 313

Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code guarantees certain rights of the accused, including the right to be informed of the prosecution's case and evidence against them. This enables accused persons to effectively defend themselves and ensures compliance with principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of specifically putting each incriminating circumstance to the accused under Section 313, so they have a fair chance to explain themselves. Failure to properly record an accused's Section 313 statement can vitiate the trial. Section 313 plays a key role in protecting accused rights and furthering the objective of ascertaining truth in criminal trials.

Uploaded by

Shubham Dua
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
161 views2 pages

Sec 313

Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code guarantees certain rights of the accused, including the right to be informed of the prosecution's case and evidence against them. This enables accused persons to effectively defend themselves and ensures compliance with principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of specifically putting each incriminating circumstance to the accused under Section 313, so they have a fair chance to explain themselves. Failure to properly record an accused's Section 313 statement can vitiate the trial. Section 313 plays a key role in protecting accused rights and furthering the objective of ascertaining truth in criminal trials.

Uploaded by

Shubham Dua
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Section 313 CrPC, Audi Alteram Partem,

and the Rights of the Accused


The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 guarantees certain basic rights to the accused,
including the right to be supplied a copy of all the documents on which the prosecution
proposes to rely (Sections 207 and 208, CrPC); the right to lead evidence in defence
(Section 243); the right to be present during the recording of evidence (Section 273); and
the right to legal counsel at the expense of the state (Sections 303 and 304).

These provisions essentially ensure that the accused is aware and informed of the
prosecution’s case against him, and is consequently able to prepare his defence and
effectively plead his case before the courts. This enables the trial to meet the requirement
of the principle of natural justice—the right to be heard, or audi alteram partem.

One other such provision that ensures the principle of natural justice to the accused
is Section 313, CrPC. The nominal title of the section suggests that it empowers the court
to examine the accused. However, on reading the provision, it becomes clear that the
purpose of the same is to enable the accused to explain away any incriminating
circumstances that may exist in the evidence led against him.

Thus, not only does it enable the courts to question the accused at any stage without
warning, but it also enables the accused as well to personally enter into a dialogue with
the court to explain his innocence.

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. In this case, the appellant was convicted of murder, and the
conviction was upheld by the Gauhati High Court. The Supreme Court, however, noted
that only two questions were put to the accused in his statement under Section 313, and
called it perfunctory.

It further held,

“[T]he incriminating material is to be put to the accused so that the accused gets a fair
chance to defend himself. This is in recognition of the principles of audi alteram partem.”

In view of the abridged recording of the Section 313 statement, the accused was
acquitted.

The Supreme Court also relied on two precedents. In Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade vs State of
Maharashtra, a three-judge bench was concerned with what happens when one omits to
put to the accused an incriminating circumstance appearing against him in evidence. The
Bench held that it was fundamental that the prisoner’s attention be drawn to ‘every
inculpatory material so as to enable him to explain it.’

The apex court in Samsul Haque had also relied on the following observations in the case
ofAsraf Ali vs State of Assam:
The object of Section 313 of the Code is to establish a direct dialogue between the court
and the accused. If a point in the evidence is important against the accused, and the
conviction is intended to be based upon it, it is right and proper that the accused be
questioned about the matter and be given an opportunity of explaining it. Where no
specific question has been put by the trial court on inculpatory material in the
prosecution evidence, it would vitiate the trial.

The importance of Section 313 in protecting the rights of an accused during trial is well
recognized. In fact, the previous CrPC of 1898 had also incorporated a similar provision
under Section 342. Even the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States –
ratified as far back as 1791 – includes rights enshrined in Section 313, namely, the right
‘to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation’, and ‘to be confronted with the
witnesses against him’.

In sum, it can be seen that Section 313 is a salutary provision deep-rooted in our criminal
justice system. It allows the accused to speak freely and with impunity, as the statement
recorded is without oath, and the accused cannot render himself liable by giving false
answers.

For precisely this reason, the version of the accused in his statement should be accepted
if it is reasonable and accords with probabilities, unless the prosecution can prove
beyond reasonable doubt that it is false.

Even though it casts an onerous duty on the courts to put to the accused each material
circumstance appearing in evidence against him/her specifically, distinctly and
separately, failing which vitiates the trial, at the same time it goes a long way in furthering
the objective of the trial court in ascertaining the truth, which, ultimately, is the guiding
principle underpinning our nation’s criminal justice process.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy