Question: “X”, a blind by birth, is facing trial for commission of offence under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution closed its evidence and the matter was listed on 10.10.2019 recording X’s statement under Section 313 of the CrPC. Before that, on 15.09.2019 “X” moved an application to supply copy of questionnaire in advance to enable him to file written statement to understand the questions with a calm mind and to respond completely and correctly which would not be possible if he was taken by surprise by putting questions spontaneously. The application is opposed by the prosecution stating that the accused was present during trial and was represented by an advocate. The purpose of the accused in moving the application is to delay the proceedings. Decide.
Answer:
Under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, following are the essential ingredients (compliances) which the Court has to abide by after the prosecution has produced their evidence on record: The court
Answer
- General Rule – The accused must answer the question by being personally present except in exceptional circumstances
According to the Settled principle of law in the case K. Anbazhagan v. The Superintendent of Police, 2004 CriLJ 583, the Supreme Court held that the general rule under Section 313 of CrPC is that the accused must answer the questions by personally remaining present in Court. It is only in exceptional circumstances that the general rule can be departed/dispensed with.
Therefore, in the present case, when the accused, i.e., X is facing trial, then the reason of being blind by birth and answering the questions with a calm mind is not an exceptional circumstance.
The questions under Section 313 are from the evidence put forth by the prosecution
It has also been upheld by the Court that The questions under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. are confined to the evidence already on record, and since X was present throughout the trial and was well aware about the evidence which has come on record before the Trial Court then, hence there is no need for supplying questionnaire in advance.
X’s application for supplying copy of questionnaire in advance cannot be granted.
b) Do you agree that putting entire incriminating evidence to the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC is a futile exercise when entire evidence is recorded in his presence?
According to Section 313 of CrPC, the purpose and principle behind implementation of this Section is to give accused a fair chance and opportunity to defend himself and explain himself for the materials or evidences which are against him.
Evidentiary Value of Section 313 of CrPC
This Section allows the accused to speak freely and with impunity, as the statement recorded is without oath, and the accused cannot render himself liable by giving false answers. Hence, the statements under Section 313 of CrPC cannot be treated as evidence within the meaning of Section-3 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
However, no law can fail to abide by the second principle of Principle of Natural Justice i.e., Audi Alteram Partum and hence, by giving a chance to the accused to put entire incriminating evidence and letting him explain his side is just, fair and reasonable. Hence, it cannot be considered futile, even though the entire evidence is recorded in the presence of the accused. Moreover, since, the section uses the word “shall” and therefore, it becomes mandatory and necessary step and not abiding by this provision would lead to vitiating of the trial.
c) What are the remedies before the appellate court if an incriminating circumstance/evidence is not put to the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC?
Since the object of Section 313 is to comply with the principles of natural justice i.e., Audi Alteram Partum and the main object of this Section is that the Trial Court can only question the accused on proven circumstance by the prosecution, therefore, the Supreme Court in the landmark case of State of Punjab v. Hari Singh, 2009 held that “if any appellate court or revisional court comes across that the trial court had not put any question under Section 313 to an accused even if it is of a vital nature, such an omission alone should not result in setting aside the conviction and sentence as an inevitable consequence.“
However, if the effect of error by the Trial Court is not causing prejudice to the fairness of the case, then it must be considered to be mere irregularities which can be cured by virtue of the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code. Hence, appellate court, at its discretion cure the irregularities under this Section and take efforts to undo the lapse.
About the author
