SC Summarises 10 Well-Settled Principles Of Section 313 CrPC
10 well-settled principles of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) as summarized by the Supreme Court, along with relevant case laws and clarifications.
Overview of Section 313 CrPC
Section 313 CrPC provides the accused an opportunity to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against them. It is a mandatory and vital procedural safeguard ensuring a fair trial by allowing the accused to meet the prosecution case and not be condemned unheard.
10 Well-Settled Principles of Section 313 CrPC Summarized by the Supreme Court
1. Mandatory Nature of Section 313
The court must put the incriminating circumstances to the accused.
It is a mandatory stage of the trial.
Failure to comply can vitiate the trial and result in acquittal or retrial.
2. Simplicity and Clarity
The questions under Section 313 should be put in simple and clear language understandable by the accused.
The object is to elicit an explanation, not to confuse or intimidate.
3. Questions Should Relate to Incriminating Circumstances
Only those circumstances that appear in the evidence and are incriminating need to be put.
The court should not put irrelevant or hypothetical questions.
4. No Obligation to Explain Beyond the Accused’s Knowledge
The accused is not compelled to explain or comment beyond the material evidence.
They can remain silent or refuse to answer, which cannot be held against them.
5. No Need to Cross-Examine Witnesses
Section 313 is independent of cross-examination.
The accused’s explanation at this stage supplements their defence but does not replace the right to cross-examine.
6. Court’s Discretion in Questioning
The court can frame leading or specific questions but must be fair.
The court must not put questions that suggest answers or are coercive.
7. Recording of Accused’s Answers
The accused’s answers must be recorded verbatim or in substance.
The record must reflect the accused’s real explanation or refusal.
8. No Presumption of Guilt
Silence or refusal to answer does not create any presumption of guilt.
The prosecution must still prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
9. Importance in Evidence Evaluation
The explanation or non-explanation is relevant for the court to assess the truthfulness and guilt.
It is a tool for the court to understand the accused’s version.
10. Section 313 Does Not Replace Defence Evidence
The accused’s statement under Section 313 is separate from evidence given on oath.
The accused is free to give evidence in defence later.
Important Case Laws Summarizing These Principles
1. K. Hemachandra v. Public Prosecutor, AIR 1958 SC 655
The Court emphasized that Section 313 is a vital part of the trial and must be complied with.
Non-compliance leads to vitiation of trial.
2. Gurbachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1996) 7 SCC 184
The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of putting relevant incriminating circumstances.
Accused must be given a reasonable opportunity to explain.
3. Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955
The accused is not bound to explain or confess.
Silence cannot be held against them.
4. State of Maharashtra v. Balwant Raghoji Kotharkar, AIR 1969 SC 783
Questions under Section 313 should be clear and unambiguous.
The accused’s answers should be correctly recorded.
5. Aminul Islam v. State of Assam, (2000) 5 SCC 257
The Court held that explanation under Section 313 is an independent opportunity and should be recorded properly.
6. R. Panduranga Rao v. State of T.N., (1997) 7 SCC 263
Failure to comply with Section 313 can lead to acquittal or retrial.
7. Ramchandra Reddy v. Public Prosecutor, (1966) 2 SCR 115
The explanation given is relevant to evaluate the prosecution evidence.
8. Nihal Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1979 SC 379
Accused’s statement under Section 313 cannot be used to corroborate prosecution witnesses.
9. Vijay v. State of M.P., (2010) 12 SCC 502
The questions should not be misleading or ambiguous.
10. Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2006) 2 SCC 677
The accused’s explanation is a valuable aid to the court but does not amount to admission or evidence.
Summary and Legal Position
Section 313 CrPC is a procedural safeguard to protect accused’s rights.
It mandates a clear, fair, and relevant questioning of the accused on incriminating circumstances.
The accused’s explanation or silence is relevant but not conclusive.
Proper compliance ensures fairness and integrity of the trial.
Courts must ensure verbatim recording and a reasonable opportunity to explain.
Non-compliance can vitiate the trial and lead to acquittal or retrial.
RELATED Blog
