Supreme Court Laments Trial Judges Not Using Section 313(5) CrPC: Asks Judicial Academies To Take Notice
Supreme Court Laments Trial Judges Not Using Section 313(5) CrPC — Judicial Academies Asked to Take Note
🔹 1. Background: Section 313 CrPC — The Accused’s Right to be Heard
Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973 empowers the court to examine the accused personally after the prosecution evidence is recorded.
It serves as an opportunity for the accused to:
Explain any incriminating evidence against them.
Present their version or defence.
🔹 2. Focus on Section 313(5) CrPC
Sub-section (5) of Section 313 was inserted through the Amendment Act of 2009, and it states:
“The Court may take the assistance of the Public Prosecutor and the Defence Counsel in the preparation of the questions under sub-section (1), and may permit the accused to submit the written statement by way of answers to the questions so formulated.”
✳️ Key Points:
It allows the accused to submit written answers instead of oral ones.
It enables counsel-assisted preparation of questions to ensure fairness and completeness.
The intent is to enhance the quality and precision of the examination under Section 313.
🔹 3. Supreme Court’s Observation
The Supreme Court recently expressed concern that trial judges are either unaware or not implementing Section 313(5).
It lamented that this valuable procedural safeguard is being neglected, defeating its legislative purpose.
The Court called upon Judicial Academies (both at the State and National levels) to:
Include training on Section 313(5) in their curriculum.
Ensure that judges are aware of and apply this provision.
🔹 4. Importance of Section 313(5)
Promotes fair trial principles and the right to defence.
Prevents incomplete or unfair recording of the accused's version.
Reduces scope for future appellate criticism on grounds of procedural irregularity.
Ensures that judges do not omit crucial questions which may exonerate the accused.
🔹 5. Relevant Case Laws
✅ Basavaraj R. Patil v. State of Karnataka, (2000) 8 SCC 740
The SC held that the accused must be given a fair opportunity to explain adverse evidence.
Section 313 is not a mere formality — failure to follow it vitiates the trial in some cases.
✅ Nar Singh v. State of Haryana, (2015) 1 SCC 496
Clarified that any omission to put an important question under Section 313 may cause prejudice and affect the fairness of trial.
✅ Raj Kumar v. State of U.P., (2019) 7 SCC 171
The SC noted that trial courts must not treat Section 313 as a routine or perfunctory task.
It must be used meaningfully and responsibly.
✅ Ajay Singh v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 12 SCC 341
The Court held that improper examination of the accused under Section 313 may be grounds for retrial.
✅ Latest SC Observation (2024-25)
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court clearly stated that:
“The non-use of Section 313(5) CrPC defeats the purpose for which it was enacted.”
It stressed that judges must stop treating this as optional, and Judicial Academies must institutionalize training on its application.
🔹 6. Role of Judicial Academies
Must impart training on:
Proper framing of questions under Section 313.
Allowing written submissions under 313(5).
Importance of ensuring accused’s right to be heard fully.
Training modules must emphasize that Section 313(5) is not discretionary in spirit, though it uses permissive language.
🔹 7. Practical Impact
More structured and complete questioning.
Enhanced fairness in trials.
Reduced scope for appeals based on procedural lapses.
Encouragement to defense counsel to assist in crafting proper responses.
📌 Summary Table
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Section 313(5) CrPC | Allows written answers by accused and assistance of counsels in preparing questions |
| SC's Concern | Trial judges neglecting this provision, defeating its purpose |
| Purpose | To ensure fairness, completeness, and protection of accused’s rights |
| Judicial Academies' Role | To train judges on using Section 313(5) effectively |
| Key Cases | Basavaraj Patil, Nar Singh, Raj Kumar, Ajay Singh |
| Impact | Fairer trials, better procedural compliance, fewer grounds for appeal |
RELATED Blog
0 comments