This article has been written by Srishti Singh, a 1st year BA LLB student from Army Institute of Law, Mohali. 

Introduction

Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), deemed by some to be the unsung hero of criminal jurisprudence, empowers the court to examine the accused with respect to all the evidence gathered and presented against him. 

The section is based on the principle of natural justice – ‘audi alteram partem,’ and seeks to provide the accused the right to be heard to contest the evidence presented against him. Under this, the accused is given the opportunity to provide an explanation regarding the incriminating circumstances highlighted to contradict his stance. This supports the idea of a ‘fair trial.’

The statement thus, recorded can neither be used to convict the accused, nor to provide him with any advantages. This is in the spirit of Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution which states, ‘no person can be compelled to be a witness against himself,’ in short, affirming ‘the rights against self-incrimination.’ As this statement is recorded without the administration of any oath, it also cannot be used as ‘evidence.’ Moreover, the accused cannot be cross-examined for the same. 

Scope and Objectives of Section 313 of CrPC 

Section 313 of the Code was laid down with the following scope and objectives in mind – 

1. To establish direct dialogue between the Court and the Accused
   This section seeks to highlight the need for conducting direct communication between the court and the accused and for providing the latter with an opportunity to answer and explain the circumstances which led to the commission of a particular crime. 

1. To test the veracity of the prosecution’s claims
   The examination of an accused by the court plays a very important role in every criminal case, as it provides the court with an opportunity to check whether the prosecution’s claims are true or not. When the accused is given the opportunity to answer, explain and clarify certain circumstances which are incriminating towards him, it not only gives him the opportunity to be rightfully heard but, also ensures that justice is achieved in its finest form. 

The accused must be notified that his statements may be used against him in the trial court. However, the answers given by the accused to these questions cannot be treated as the sole basis of his punishment. They can only be used to support the evidence presented by the prosecution. Moreover, as per Section 313(5), the accused also has the right to file a written statement in sufficient compliance with the section.

The provisions under Section 313 must not be treated as a mere formality and must be put to good use to conduct a free and fair trial.

Meaning and Interpretation 

The term, ‘accused’ has not been defined in the CrPC, however, it is universally understood to be, “a person charged with an offense.” As per this section, every accused has the right to be called by the court and given the opportunity to explain his circumstances as per the evidence laid down against him. This is especially relevant in case of circumstantial evidence, wherein it is required to decide whether the chain of circumstances of an event is complete or not. 

The Code does not have any specific definition for the term, ‘evidence,’ however, its definition can be found in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Evidence is anything that may be used to determine the truth value of a certain assertion. In Indian law, the term evidence assumes a more definite meaning as compared to the English Law, as it includes only those instruments through which suitable and appropriate facts are brought before the court and by the help of which the court is convinced of these facts.

The choice of words used in the Section is of special significance to us. ‘May’ used in Section 313(a) indicates how the accused cannot raise any concerns if the court decides not to question him. Similarly, ‘shall,’ used in Section 313(b) shows us that the accused must be questioned after the witnesses have been examined, and if his questioning does not take place, it is a violation of his rights. Therefore, the attention of the accused must be brought to each and every piece of incriminating evidence brought against him and at the same time, he must also be given the opportunity to explain himself for the same, in the spirit of conducting a ‘fair trial.’

Necessary conditions to be fulfilled by the questions posed 

The questions thus, asked must also fulfill certain conditions. These being – 

1. The questions posed to the accused must be simple, reasonable, fair and easy to understand. The Trial court must accommodate measures for examining illiterate and ignorant defendants also.  
2. The questions may be followed up by an explanation if needed, to aid the accused in answering the question.
3. The questions asked must be in relation to the whole case or a specific part of it. 
4. There is no particular number of questions which may be posed to the accused.
5. In case of multiple witnesses, the court may club the questions together and from one question.
6. If the lower court fails to provide the accused with an opportunity to explain his circumstances, the higher court may deny the validity of the question.
7. In case the Appellate court realizes that a question pertinent to the case was not posed to the accused, then the omission of the same would not affect the order of the court. However, now, the court must fulfill its duty to provide a remedy that would correct the order. 

Procedure

A general reading of Section 313(1) indicates that the court is empowered during any stage of inquiry to question the accused without giving him any prior warnings. This can be interpreted from the use of the words ‘may’ in sub-clause (a). With the use of the word, ‘shall,’ in sub-clause (b), the Code makes the question mandatory for the accused.

Clause (3) of the Section says that it will not make the accused liable for not giving answers or for giving false answers to the questions posed. The accused, therefore, also has the right to remain silent for any of the questions the court asks him. This is so because the accused is not obligated to be under an oath to answer any questions truthfully and honestly as per Section 313(2). However, under Section 313(4), the answers provided by the accused, as under sub-section (1) may be put up as evidence and considered by the court, if its for or against the accused, in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence which such answers may tend to show he has committed.

The Right to Silence

Section 313(3) of the CrPC gives the right to remain silent to the accused to any question posed to him by the court. The Section and Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution were enacted with the aim of giving the accused a chance to be answerable to the incriminating circumstances which may be used against him in the court. Hence, the court is allowed to draw inferences only from the answers the accused has willingly given and nothing can be presumed from his decision to remain silent. 

Moreover, the court must also not draw adverse inferences from the accused’s silence. If the court resorts to treating the silence of the accused as a substitute for proof, it affects the reliability and the validity of the statements made. As a result, such statements would not qualify as ‘evidence’ as defined under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 

While providing his account of the case, there must also not be any fear of perjury in the mind of the accused. The judiciary grossly undermines the right to remain silent of the accused. Generally, drawing adverse inferences from his silence contravenes Article 20(3) of the Constitution and also, constitutes the compulsion of a testimony. The judiciary should, therefore, recognize the ‘right to silence’ as an unrestrictive right and bring it under the purview of ‘the right to free trial’ under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. 

Principles Laid Down by Courts 

Recently, in the case of Premchand v. State of Maharashtra [2023 SCC OnLine SC 218], the Supreme Court reiterated the various principles surrounding Section 313 of the CrPC. These include – 

1. State of U.P. v. Lakhmi [(1998) 4 SCC 336] wherein the value of a statement under Section 313 of CrPC was highlighted. 
2. Sanatan Naskar v. State of W.B. [(2010) 8 SCC 249] elaborated upon the objective of enacting Section 313 of CrPC.
3. Reena Hazarika v. State of Assam [(2019) 13 SCC 289] established that Section 313 of CrPC cannot be seen simply as a part of audi alteram partem and the rationale behind the requirement to comply with the provision.
4. Parminder Kaur v. State of Punjab [(2020) 8 SCC 811] highlighted the importance of Section 313 of CrPC in criminal trials. 

Conclusion 

Section 313 of CrPC deals with the power of the court to examine the accused in light of the evidence and circumstances presented against him. It ensures that he is granted his ‘right to be heard,’ for presenting his explanation of the circumstances which led to the commission of the crime. The said provision plays an important role in criminal trials by ensuring that the right to a fair trial is also available to the accused. The judiciary of our country undermines the provisions of this Section and therefore, there is a dire need to understand its wide scope in criminal jurisprudence. 

References 

https://ijtr.nic.in/SCOPE%20and%20Significance%20313%20Cr.P.C..pdf

https://www.mondaq.com/india/crime/1088048/section-313-of-the-code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-an-unsung-hero-of-criminal-jurisprudence#_ftn32

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/section-313-crpc-supreme-court-summarises-well-settled-principles-223313

https://blog.ipleaders.in/central-conceptions-law-evidence/