Object of Section 313 CrPC

The very basis of Section 313 of Cr.PC is founded on the principle of natural justice known as audi alterem partem which means right to be heard or right to fair trial to the accused as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and the objectives and purposes of Section are to preserve the rights of the accused under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.

Section 313 gives power to the Magistrate to examine the accused which gives him an opportunity to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. Further, the accused can not be cross-examined. Statement of an accused under Section 313 is recorded without administering oath and, therefore the said statement cannot be treated as evidence within the meaning of Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

The primary purpose of Section 313 is to ensure fair trial for interest of the accused. To attain the purpose of the section duty is cast upon the Magistrate, who is to question the accused fairly. The question put to him must be fair and must be couched in a form which an ignorant or illiterate person may be able to appreciate and understand. The object of this section is to give the accused an opportunity to say what he wanted to say in respect of the prosecution case against him, so that he can answer and explain any circumstances that appear against him.

Section 313(1) explains that for the purpose of enabling the accused personally explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against the Court may when necessary at any stage without previously warning the accused put question to him. The section also make it mandatory for the Court to question the accused on the case after the examination of a prosecution  witnesses and before examination of defence.

The second clause of sub-section (1) indicates that questioning of the accused is mandatory after the witnesses of prosecution and defence have been examined to ensure that the rights of the accused is not violated.

In a summons case, the Court upon the personal attendance of the accused, may dispense with his examination as per clause (b) of sub-section (1).

Section 313(2) affirms that the accused is not obligated to administer an oath when making statements under the particular section.

The accused is not made liable to punishment if he refuses to answer question or give false answer asked by the Court because the accused is aided by Right to be silent under Section 313.

The decision of Phula Singh vs State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 2014 SC 1256 spells out the right of the accused i.e right  to be silent

The accused has a duty to furnish an explanation in his statement regarding any incriminating material that has been produced against him. If the accused has been given the freedom to remain silent during the investigation as well as before the Court, then the accused may choose to maintain silent or even remain in complete denial when his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC is being recorded.

Section 313 (5) also provides the accused to file a written statement as sufficient compliance with the section.

 

CASES:

The case of Reena Hazarika vs State of Assam  (2019) 13 SCC 289) sets an important example on the section 313 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e right to fair hearing is constitutional right of the accused. 

It was held –

“Section 313 Cr.PC cannot be seen simply as a part of audi alterm partem. It confers a valuable right upon an accused to establish his innocence and can well be considered beyond statutory right as constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the constitution, even if it is not to be considered as piece of substantive evidence, not being on oath under section 313(2), Cr.PC”.

The most recent judgment Premchand vs. State of Maharashtra (2023),  Supreme Court held “once a written statement is filed by the accused und sub-section (5) of the Section 313 Cr.PC and the Court marks it an exhibit such statement must be treated as part of the accused’s statements under sub-section (1) read with sub-section (4) thereof” 

In this case, the Supreme Court referred to several previous cases namely State of U.P. vs Lakhmi (1998) 4 SCC 336, Sanatan Naskar vs. State of West Bengal (2010) 8 SCC 249, Reena Hazarika vs. State of Assam  (2019) 13 SCC 289, Parminder Kaur vs. State of Punjab (2020) 8 SCC 811, and M. Abbas vs. State of Kerala (2001) 10 SCC 103 which laid 10 well settled principles of Section 313 Cr.PC.

 

a.         section 313, Cr. P.C. [clause (b) of sub-section 1] is a valuable safeguard in the trial process for the accused to establish his innocence;

 

b.         section 313, which is intended to ensure a direct dialogue between the court and the accused, casts a mandatory duty on the court to question the accused generally on the case for the purpose of enabling him to personally explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him;

 

c.         when questioned, the accused may not admit his involvement at all and choose to flatly deny or out rightly repudiate whatever is put to him by the court;

 

d.        the accused may even admit or own incriminating circumstances adduced against him to adopt legally recognized defences;

 

e. an accused can make a statement without fear of being cross-examined by the prosecution or the latter having any right to cross-examine him;

 

f.          the explanations that an accused may furnish cannot be considered in isolation but has to be considered in conjunction with the evidence adduced by the prosecution and, therefore, no conviction can be premised solely on the basis of the section 313 statement(s);

 

g.         statements of the accused in course of examination under section 313, since not on oath, do not constitute evidence under section 3 of the Evidence Act, yet, the answers given are relevant for finding the truth and examining the veracity of the prosecution case;

 

h.        statement(s) of the accused cannot be dissected to rely on the inculpatory part and ignore the exculpatory part and has/have to be read in the whole, inter alia, to test the authenticity of the exculpatory nature of admission;

 

i.          if the accused takes a defence and proffers any alternate version of events or interpretation, the court has to carefully analyze and consider his statements; and

 

j.          any failure to consider the accused’s explanation of incriminating circumstances, in a given case, may vitiate the trial and/or endanger the conviction.

In Ashraf Ali vs. State of Assam (2008), the Supreme Court echoed on the objective of Section 313. It stated that objective of Section 313 was to initiate a dialogue between the Court and the accused. It is also stated that if a point in the evidence is important against the accused, an the conviction is intended to be based upon it, it is right and proper that the accused should be questioned about the matter and be given an opportunity of explaining it.

It was also decided:

“The well settled principle regarding Section 313 of Cr.PC is every criminal court in proceeding under Clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 313 has to shoulder the onerous responsibility of scanning of evidence after the incriminating circumstances in the evidence against the accused and prepare relevant questions to extend opportunity to the accused to explain any such circumstances in the evidence that could be used against him”.

In Raj Kumar vs. State (NCT of Delhi) [2023]  the Supreme Court noted Section 313 (5) of CrPC regarding the Court seeking help from both the counsels for preparing relevant questions and permitting filing of written statement in sufficient compliance of the provision, which came into effect on 31-12-2009. Thus, in cases involving numerous prosecution witnesses, before putting the questions prepared before the accused, the Trial Court can seek assistance of public prosecutor and defense counsel to ensure that relevant material circumstances against the accused are put before him/her, and that such lawyers must act as officers of the Court and not the mouthpieces of their respective clients.

In conclusion, the object of Section 313 is to intensify rights of the accused such as  right to be heard, right to file written statement, right to explain circumstances in the evidence that appears against him, right to be silent, etc.