Section 313 CrPC - Written Statement Of Accused Has To Be Considered In The Light Of Prosecution Evidence : Supreme Court

While dealing with Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the power to examine the accused, a Bench comprising Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta noted -

“Indeed, it is optional for the accused to explain the circumstances put to him under section 313, but the safeguard provided by it and the valuable right that it envisions, if availed of or exercised, could prove decisive and have an effect on the final outcome, which would in effect promote utility of the exercise rather than its futility.”

Factual Background

In a murder case, the mother of the deceased lodged a report leading to the registration of an F.I.R. under Section 302 and 307 IPC. Subsequently, the accused was arrested. The Trial Court found that the accused had murdered the deceased using a knife and he also attempted to commit murder of three other prosecution witnesses. It held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt; convicted the accused; and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The appeal before the Bombay High Court, Nagur Bench was also dismissed.

Analysis by the Supreme Court

Referring to the written statement filed by the accused before the Trial Court in his defence under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the Supreme Court noted that the accused used to go to Katol every 2-3 months to collect rent. During one of his visits to Katol he was threatened by the victim and attacked by the three prosecution witnesses. It appears that he went to lodge a complaint at the police station, which was not received. Citing a catena of judgments on Section 313 Cr.P.C., the Court briefly summarised the settled principles as under -

“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 outrightly 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; and

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;

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.”

The Court observed that after scanning through the evidence after the prosecution closes its case, the Trial Court ought to trace the incriminating circumstances to prepare a list of questions to be put before the accused to explain any such circumstance in the evidence that could be against them. It noted that prior to the 2009 amendment to Section 313, it was the bounden duty of the court alone to perform the aforesaid task. The amendment contemplated the Trial Court taking assistance of the Public Prosecutor and the Defence Counsel to prepare the questions in order to ensure fair but speedy trials. The Court noted that the reality is far away from the intention of the amendment as -

“more often than not, the time and effort behind such an exercise put in by the trial court does not achieve the desired result. This is because either the accused elects to come forward with evasive denials or answers questions with stereotypes like ‘false’, ‘I don’t know’, ‘incorrect’, etc. Many a time, this does more harm than good to the cause of the accused. For instance, if facts within the special knowledge of the accused are not satisfactorily explained, that could be a factor against the accused. Though such factor by itself is not conclusive of guilt, it becomes relevant while considering the totality of the circumstances.”

It suggested that the exercise under Section 313 should be realistic and act as a means in securing the ends of justice. It noted that in the present case, neither the Trial Court nor the High Court looked at the written statement of the accused. The Court found that the Trial Court did not delve into the argument of private defence advanced by the accused, which seemed plausible. It noted that if the accused, a senior citizen, had the intention to murder he would not have attempted to do so with a weapon such as a knife; in broad daylight; and in the presence of witnesses. The Court opined that the accused was entitled to the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, which suggests culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The Apex Court held him to be guilty under Section 304 IPC. Considering that the accused has already undergone 9 years of imprisonment and in his late sixties, he was directed to be released.

At the end, the Court noted that the police should have investigated the injuries suffered by the accused. However it noted that since almost a decade has taken place since the incident took place, direction to investigate the same now would not be fruitful.

Case details : Premchand v. State of Maharashtra| 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 168    | Criminal Appeal No. 211 of 2023| 3rd March, 2023| Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta

For Appellant(s) Mr. Sudheer Voditel, Adv. Mr. Ravindra Bana, AOR Mr. Simanta Kumar, Adv. 

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973- Section 313(5)- Once a written statement is filed by the accused under Section 313(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Trial Court marks it as exhibit, such statement must be treated as part of the statement of the accused under Section 313(1) read with Section 313(4) Cr.P.C - Para 17

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973- Section 313- it is optional for the accused to explain the circumstances put to him under section 313, but the safeguard provided by it and the valuable right that it envisions, if availed of or exercised, could prove decisive and have an effect on the final outcome, which would in effect promote utility of the exercise rather than its futility- Para 16

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973- Section 313-Settled principles summarized - Para 15

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973- Section 313 - judicial experience has shown that more often than not, the time and effort behind such an exercise put in by the trial court does not achieve the desired result. This is because either the accused elects to come forward with evasive denials or answers questions with stereotypes like ‘false’, ‘I don’t know’, ‘incorrect’, etc. Many a time, this does more harm than good to the cause of the accused. For instance, if facts within the special knowledge of the accused are not satisfactorily explained, that could be a factor against the accused. Though such factor by itself is not conclusive of guilt, it becomes relevant while considering the totality of the circumstances - Para 16

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment