Last Updated :
- The Purpose of Section 313
- Procedure for Examination of Accused
- Evidentiary Value of Statements made under Section 313
- Effect of Non-Compliance of Section 313
This article discusses the Examination Of Accused By The Magistrate Under Section 313 Of The Cr.P.C, 1973. Criminal Law is based on the presumption of innocence of the denounced person. Therefore, it contemplates every effort to be taken to allow the accused to explain his conduct and the circumstances in which he committed the offence or in which he has been accused of committing the offence. Thus, Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code mandates the court to examine the accused.
The law orders each implicating proof ought to be put to the denounced independently. Section 313 CrPC depends on the major rule of fairness. This article, therefore, aims at explaining the purpose of enacting Section 313 of the CrPC. The article shall further delve into the procedure of examination of accused and the consequences of non-examination on the entire trial.
Accused is analysed in each enquiry or preliminary by empowering him to clarify by and by to conditions showing up in proof against him. Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter, CrPC) conceives intensity of the preliminary court to look at the accused to clarify proof showed against him.
We as a whole realize it is principal rule of equity nobody ought to be accused unheard. to meet the necessity of the standards of normal equity as it necessitates that an accused might be given a chance to outfit clarification of the implicating material which had come against him in the preliminary. Be that as it may, his assertions can’t be made a reason for his conviction.
The Purpose of Section 313
The section itself announces the purpose of this provision in express language that it is “for the motivation behind empowering the accused person by and by to clarify any conditions showing up in the proof against him.”
The object of section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, is to given occasion to feel qualms about an obligation the courts to scrutinize the accused appropriately and decently so that it is acquired home to the accused clear words the accurate case that the charged need to meet and consequently an open door is given to the accused to clarify any such point. The assessment of the accused person isn’t planned to be an inert custom it must be completed in light of a legitimate concern for equity and reasonable play to the accused person.
The reason for section 313 of CrPC is set out in its opening words “for the motivation behind empowering the charged person to clarify any conditions showing up in the proof against him”, with the goal that it is right of accused person to disclose to court what are the conditions of the occasion showing up in proof against him.
On the off chance that lower court neglect to offer the chance to him, he is qualified to ask the appellate court to put him in the equivalent position as he would have been in, had he been inquired. It is genuinely accused of having the right to look after quiet, he isn’t constrained to talk during the examination and ensuing thereon. Simultaneously it is an obligation of the court to offer a chance to talk or clarify his body of evidence and against the proof set forth by indictment during preliminary
It was observed by the Hon’ble apex court in Raj Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan that in a criminal trial, the motivation behind analysing the accused individual under Section 313 CrPC., is to meet the prerequisite of the standards of common equity, for example, audi alterum partem. This implies the charged might be approached to outfit a few clarifications as respects the implicating conditions related to him, and the court must observe such clarification.
For a situation of incidental proof, the equivalent is basic to choose whether or not the chain of conditions is complete. Regardless of how frail the proof of the indictment might be, it is the obligation of the court to inspect the accused and to look for his clarification as respects the implicating material that has surfaced against him. The conditions which are not put to the accused in his assessment under Section 313 CrPC., can’t be utilized against him and must be rejected from thought.
Procedure for Examination of Accused
According to section 313 of CrPC., an accused person is analysed at any phase for seeking additional evidence, will after the culmination of proof of arraignment. To know the technique of assessment of a charged person, it is appropriate to peruse Section 313 of CrPC.
On plain perusing of the aforesaid provision, the initial segment offers attentiveness to court to question the accused person at any phase for enquiry without past notice whereas the subsequent part is compulsory. The utilization of “may” in provision (a) shows that attentiveness is vested in the Court. Be that as it may, clause (b) utilizes “will”, and makes the scrutinizing obligatory.
When an accused person is being examined as over, no oath or pledge is to be directed to him. Besides, he does not render himself subject by declining to address such questions or by furnishing bogus responses to such arrangements.
The appropriate responses which are given by the accused person in such assessment might be taken into thought and put in proof, possibly in support of him in that or some other request or preliminary for any other offence which such answers may will, in general, show that he has submitted.
While scrutinising the accused the trial court needs to think about that the inquiries ought to be founded on the proof cited by arraignment. The inquiries ought to be planned in a clear, legitimate and justifiable manner leaving no vagueness in addressing the charged person. While looking at the alleged offender, courts need to mull over the financial and scholarly capability of charged and his ability to comprehend addresses presented to him.
The court needs to take intense consideration while looking at natural and ignorant persons. The accused in the event that he is anything but a shrewd individual with a sharp memory may not by any means recall every one of the conditions put to him while giving his clarification. This may affinely prompt miscarriage of equity.
In the event that dubious inquiries are put to the accused, he might not have the chance to clarify quickly and effectively. Proof of each witness and implicating proof found thereon ought to be asked exclusively yet not in a conventional manner scrutinizing all the accused at once.
Addressing of all charged at once about implicating proof discovered structure arraignment isn’t legitimate, as job and interest, each alleged offender may diverse as indicated by the realities and conditions of each case. So, it is constantly alluring to get some information about implicating proof found against him for a situation.
Evidentiary Value of Statements made under Section 313
As the accused is not examined on vow in 313 assessment to clarify his form or his case against the proof cited by indictment, the statements made by him can’t be taken as a proof against him. Indeed, even it is right of the charged person to keep quiet or to give any unauthentic articulation which doesn’t tie him or the court is not permitted to indict him on such explanations given by him in the assessment.
The purpose, procedure and consequences of 313 examinations were best explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanatan Naskar v. State of West Bengal. The court held that “The answers by an accused under Section 313 of the CrPC are of relevance for finding out the truth and examining the veracity of the case of the prosecution. The scope of Section 313 of the CrPC is wide and is not a mere formality”.
In Mohan Singh v. Prem Singh, the court raised the question that when such an examination is recorded, what degree and results such explanation can be utilized during the enquiry and the trial. Over the time frame, the Courts have clarified this idea and now it has attained, more or less, assurance in the field of the criminal statute.
The assertions of the accused can be utilized to test the veracity of the exculpatory of the confirmation, assuming any, made by the accused. It very well may be mulled over in any enquiry or preliminary yet at the same time, it does not carefully confirm the situation.
The provisions of Section 313 (4) of CrPC expressly gives that the appropriate responses given by the charged person might be mulled over in such enquiry or preliminary and put in proof possibly in support of the accused in some other enquiry into or trial for some other offence for which such answers may will in general show he has submitted.
As it were, the utilization is passable according to the arrangements of the Code yet has its very own restrictions. The Courts may depend on a part of the assertions of the accused person and see him as liable regarding the other proof against him drove by the arraignment, be that as it may, such explanations made under this Section ought not to be considered in detachment yet related to proof illustrated by the indictment.
Another significant alert that Courts have proclaimed in the proclamations is that conviction of the denounced can’t be founded simply on the assertions made under Section 313 of the CrPC as it can’t be viewed as a substantive bit of proof.
Effect of Non-Compliance of Section 313
Non-examination of accused under Section 313 of CrPC doesn’t nullify the whole procedures or instance of the arraignment. The person charged of offence can make use for the equivalent even at the re-appraising stage. It is not the sole base for ousting except if the accused person indicated premature delivery for equity.
The court in State (Delhi Adm.) v. Dharampal, stated that in this way it is to be seen that were an oversight, to carry the consideration of the accused to an inculpatory material has happened that doesn’t ipso facto vitiate the trial. The accused must show that irreparable loss had incurred or great travesty of justice was occasioned by such oversight.
Further, in case of an inculpatory material not having been put to the accused, the re-appraising Court can generally make great that slip by calling upon the insight for the charged to show what clarification the denounced has as respects the conditions built up against the charged however not put to him.
Moreover, in Gyan Chand v. State of Haryana, the plea of non-compliance of the arrangements of Section 313, CrPC was taken for the first time before the apex court. Be that as it may, there was no material appearing concerning what bias has been caused to the denounced person if realities of cognizant belonging were not put to them.
In this manner, the court held that the trial was not frustrated for the rebelliousness of the provision. Mere faulty/inappropriate assessment under Section 313 is no ground for putting aside the conviction of the accused person, except if it has brought about partiality to the denounced. Except if the assessment is done in an unreasonable manner, there can’t be any bias to the denounced.
- N. Chandrasekharan Pillai, R.V. Kelkar’s Criminal Procedure (6th ed. 2014).
- Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, Commentary on the Code of Criminal Procedure (18th ed. 2006).
- Sobha Kumari, Senior Civil Judge, Examination of Accused Under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
 Raj Kumar Singh v. the State of Rajasthan, AIR 2013 SC 3150.
 Sanatan Naskar v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2010 SC 3507.
 Mohan Singh v. Prem Singh, AIR 2002 SC 3582.
 State (Delhi Adm.) v. Dharampal, AIR 2001 SC 2924.
 Gyan Chand v. the State of Haryana, AIR 2013 SC 3395.
- Examination of Accused as a Defense Witness: Purpose and Procedure(Opens in a new browser tab)
- Plea of Guilt and Plea Bargaining Under the Cr.P.C, 1973(Opens in a new browser tab)