About the Author
Nivea Robin D Cruz is a BA English and Communicative English graduate from All Saints’ College, Trivandrum. Currently doing 4th semester Three Year Unitary LLB at Government Law College.
INTRODUCTION
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 guarantees certain basic rights to the accused, including the right to be supplied a copy of all the documents on which the prosecution proposes to rely (Sections 207 and 208, CrPC); the right to lead evidence in defence (Section 243); the right to be present during the recording of evidence (Section 273); and the right to legal counsel at the expense of the state (Sections 303 and 304).
These provisions ensure that the accused is aware and informed of the prosecution’s case against him, and is able to prepare his defence and effectively plead his case before the courts. This enables the trial to meet the requirement of the principle of natural justice—the right to be heard, or audi alteram partem.
One other such provision that ensures the principle of natural justice to the accused is Section 313, CrPC which empowers the court to examine the accused. The purpose of this section is to enable the accused to explain any incriminating circumstances that may exist in the evidence led against him.
Thus, not only does it enable the courts to question the accused at any stage without warning, but it also enables the accused as well to personally enter into a dialogue with the court to explain his innocence.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The prosecution case was that Nandkishor Korde was murdered. The other three victims, namely Namdeo Korde , Vilas Charde and Kunal Babhulkar also received stab injuries inflicted by the appellant. A report was lodged by the mother of the deceased leading to registration of an F.I.R. under sections 302 and 307, IPC. Consequently, the appellant was arrested. The appellant filed a Written Statement in his defence. The Trial court largely relied on the statements of the other three victims and concluded that the appellant committed the offences under section 302 and 307, IPC. The defence of the appellant appeared to be false and the prosecution was held to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. The judgment was challenged before the High Court, but it was dismissed.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the Trial Court and the High Court failed to take into consideration the right of the accused enshrined in section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Whether the appellant has committed the offences under sections 302 and 307 of The Indian Penal Code?
ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT
The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the courts below clearly erred in convicting the appellant. According to him, the courts failed to examine other persons present at the site of occurrence. Having regard to the age of the appellant (he was 58 years old on the date of the incident), it is improbable that he could freely inflict stab injuries without anyone even making an attempt to resist him. All eyewitnesses who deposed against the appellant were interested witnesses and therefore, not credible and their testimony ought not to have been relied upon. It was a clear case of false implication suppressing the original story of the actual incident. There is no explanation from the side of the prosecution with regard to the six injuries suffered by the appellant. No motive could be established with regard to the assault of the victim. The knife was not recovered at the instance of the appellant under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 but seizure has been shown to have been made at the site. There being contradictory statements among the other victims, it is unclear as to who introduced the knife in the scuffle. There could hardly be any reason for the appellant to travel long distance and murder the victim, and that too with a knife in broad daylight and in the presence of a host of people.
ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF THE PROSECUTION
Learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the Sessions Judge. He also submitted that the High Court took pains to reappraise the evidence and finally concurred with the Sessions Judge. No case having been set up by the appellant for interference, he urged the Court to dismiss the appeal.
ANALYSIS BY THE SUPREME COURT
The case focuses mainly on the provision of Section 313 of CrPC which is the power to examine the accused. The court referred to a chain of judgements to point out its relevance:
• State of U.P. v. Lakhmi (1998) 4 SCC 336
• Sanatan Naskar v. State of West Bengal (2010) 8 SCC 249
• Reena Hazarika v. State of Assam (2019) 13 SCC 289
• Parminder Kaur v. State of Punjab (2020) 8 SCC 811
• M. Abbas v. State of Kerala (2001) 10 SCC 103
Summarizing all these cases, the Supreme court came up with 10 well settled principles:
1.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.
2. Section 313, 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.
3. When questioned, the accused may not admit his involvement at all and choose to deny or repudiate whatever is put to him by the court.
4. The accused may even admit or own incriminating circumstances adduced against him to adopt legally recognized defences.
5. 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.
6.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).
7. 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.
8. 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
9. 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.
10. Any failure to consider the accused’s explanation of incriminating circumstances, in a given case, may vitiate the trial and/or endanger the conviction.”
In the light of the well-settled principles, every criminal court proceeding under section 313(1)(a) has to scan the evidence after the prosecution closes its case, to trace the incriminating circumstances in the evidence against the accused and to prepare relevant questions that could be used against him.
As per Section 313(4) the answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in the trial and put in evidence for or against them in any other trial for any other offences, which the answer would suggest they have committed.
In 2009, by way of an amendment, Section 313(5) was inserted where the Court takes help of the Prosecutor and Defence Counsel in preparing the relevant questions that are to be asked to the accused and may also permit filing of Written Statement by the accused denoting sufficient compliance with the provision. The intention behind the amendment was to ensure fair but speedy trials.
The Supreme court observed that once a Written Statement is filed by the accused under Section 313(5) of CrPC and the Trial Court marks it as an exhibit, such statement must be treated as part of the statement of the accused under Section 313(1) read with Section 313(4) CrPC.
JUDGEMENT
The exercise under Section 313 should be realistic and act as a means in securing the ends of justice. In the present case, neither the Trial Court nor the High Court looked at the written statement of the accused. Taking an overall view of the matter, The Supreme Court was of the opinion that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Exception 4 to section 300 IPC taking into consideration the disclosure of appellants version as to what happened that day which is enshrined in paragraph 23 of the case. The appellant could not be convicted for murder of the victim. His conviction for murder and sentence of life imprisonment were set aside. However, the court thinks it proper to convict the appellant under section 304, Part II, IPC. But, since the appellant has suffered imprisonment for more than nine years and is presently in his late sixties, the court considered incarceration for such period as adequate punishment. The appellant was released from the custody.
