Judicial Analysis of Examination of Accused Under Section 313 and Evidentiary Value of Statements
Keywords:
Statement of accused, Evidentiary value, Audi Alterem Partum, Criminal Justice.Abstract
The principle of natural justice, known as Audi Alteram Partem, requires that a person be given a fair hearing before being convicted. Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) gives the court the authority to question the accused in order to fulfil this requirement. This means that the accused may be asked to provide an explanation of the circumstances linking them to the evidence against them, and the court must consider this explanation when making its decision. This is of great assistance to the accused, especially if he is not being represented. As also observed by Stephen, “an ignorant, uneducated man has the greatest possible difficulty in collecting his ideas and seeing the bearing of the facts alleged. He is utterly unaccustomed to sustained attention or systematic thought, and the criminal trial proceedings, which to an experienced person appear plain and simple, must be passing before the eyes and mind of the accused like a dream which he cannot grasp.” The significance of Section 313 in this situation is obvious; it mandates that the accused be questioned fairly and appropriately by the court so that the accused is made aware of the precise case that they would have to face and is given the chance to defend any points that may have been raised. This article is an attempt to shed light on the judicial significance of Section 313 CrPC and the evidentiary value of the statements recorded under this section in the current criminal justice regime.
References
1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
2. K N Chandrasekharan Pillai (rev.), R V Kelkar’s CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 7th ed. 2021, p. 437– 439.
3. Shivaji Sahab Rao v. State of Maharashtra. (1973) 2 SCC 793.
4. Reena Hazarika v. State of Assam, (2019) 13 SCC 289.
5. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 313(a).
6. Legal Articles in India. (2018). Defence of the Accused U/s 313 CrPC; Non -Consideration Can Vitiate Conviction. [online] Legal Articles in India. Available from: https://www.legalservicesindia.com/law/article/1099/5/-Defence-of-The-Accused-U-s-313- CrPC;-Non-Consideration-Can-Vitiate-Conviction.
7. Fainul Khan v. State of Jharkhand, (2019) 9 SCC 549.
8. Justice C. K. Thakker, ENCYCLOPEDIAC LAW LEXICON, 4th ed. 2016, p. 3225.
9. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act No. 1 of 1872), Section 3(1) & (2). AIR 2013 SC 3150.
10. Raj Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan. AIR 2013 SC 3150.
11. Brajendra Singh v. State of MP. 2012 SCC OnLine MP 1979.
12. Sanatan Naskar & Anr v. State of West Bengal. AIR 2010 SC 3507.
13. Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana. AIR 2010 SC 2839.
14. Sanatan Naskar & Anr v. State of West Bengal. AIR 2010 SC 3507.
15. Supra 14n. Error! Bookmark not defined.
16. Manna v. State, AIR 1954 ALL 578.
17. Mustan v. State AIR 1953 Pepsu 125.
18. Ram v. State (1978) CrLJ 544 (ALL).
19. Benode, (1923) 50 Cal 985.
20. R.K. Raspin v. Raspin, (1931) 36 CWN 380 (381).
21. Bibhuti Bhushan Das Gupta v. State of WB, AIR 1969 2 SCR 104.
22. Dalami v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1962 SC 1821.
23. Anant v. State, 1995 CrLJ 2583 (Bom).
24. Usha K Pillai v. Raj Srinivas, AIR 1993 SC 2090.
25. (1929) 31 Bom LR 1134.
26. Labhachand Dhanpat Singh Jain v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1975 SC 182.
27. Op. Cit. 37.
28. 2007 Cr.L.J. 3395 (DB).
29. AIR 2007 SC 2188.
30. Mir Mohd Omar v. State of WB., (1989) 4 SCC 436, at para 17.
31. State of U.P. v. Mohd. Iqram & Anr; AIR 2011 SC 2296.
32. (2015) 1 SCC 496.
33. Supra n. 42.
34. Supra n. 30.
35. Kesar v. State of Rajasthan, (1975) CrLJ 1272 (Raj), at para 5.
36. Usha K. Pillai v. Raj Srinivas, AIR 1993 SC 2090.
37. Basavaraj R. Patil v. State of Karnataka (2000) 8 SCC SC 3214).
38. (1989) (1) Cr. 229, 231 (Mad).
39. 2010 AIR SCW 5658.
40. Man Chander v. State, (1995) 2 SCR 524.
41. Shivaji Sahebrao Babade v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 2622.
42. Dasan v. State, 1978 CrLJ 180 (Ker).
43. Hira Singh v. State, (2005) CrLJ 2062 (Uttar).
44. State of MP. v. Mukesh, (2006) 13 SCC 197.
45. SCC OnLine Kar 12287.
46. Ibid, at para 5.
47. Ibid, at para 8.
48. 2023 Live Law (SC) 168.
49. Ibid, at para 16.
50. See, Anthony D’Souza v. State of Karnataka, (2003) 1 SCC 259.
51. See, Tanviben Pankaj Kumar Divetia v. State of Gujarat, (1997) 7 SCC 156.
52. AIR 2010 SC 3507.
53. Ibid, at para 10.
54. AIR 2002 SC 3582.
55. AIR 2010 SC 3594.
56. (2019) 10 SCC 623.
57. A conviction cannot be based solely on the statements recorded under section 313 which is not “evidence” because it is an unsworn testimony. See State of Maharashtra v. Chowdhary, AIR 1968 SC 110, at para 5.
58. Anthony D’Souza v. State of Karnataka, (2003) 1 SCC 259.
59. Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 2 SCC 353.
60. Lehna vs. Respondent: State of Haryana. Case no.: Appeal (crl.) 733 of 2001.
61. Livelaw News Network. (2022). Govt will introduce new drafts for IPC, CrPC in parliament soon: Union Home Minister Amit Shah. [Online] Available at https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/govt- will-introduce-new-drafts-for-ipc-crpc-in-parliament-soon-union-home-minister-amit-shah- 212642?infinitescroll=1 [Accessed on September 2023]
62. Reena Hazarika v. State of Assam, (2019) 13 SCC 289.
63. Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 404.
