Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sandeep Mehta held that the conviction of the accused cannot be sustained as he was not examined under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) and as a result there was material prejudice caused to the accused. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Naresh Kumar v. State of Delhi. 

What is the Background of Naresh Kumar v. State of Delhi Case? 

• The wife of Appellant, accused, Meena said filthy words to Laxmi enraged by a certain act of Laxmi. 
•  The Appellant too started abusing her and the deceased, Arun Kumar asked him to stop the abuses. 
• The Appellant exhorted his brother, Mahinder Kumar, to come out and finish him. 
• Mahinder came out with the knife and the appellant caught hold of the deceased and Mahinder stabbed his chest repeatedly with a knife. 
• The Appellant has challenged the confirmation of his conviction under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Section 34 of IPC. 
• The case of the Appellant was that there was noncompliance of Section 313 of CrPC that has caused prejudice to the appellant.   

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court held that Section 313 of CrPC embodies the salutary principle of natural justice i.e. audi alteram partem. 
• It is well established that non examination or inadequate examination of accused under Section 313 of CrPC by itself would not vitiate the trial of the convict unless it has resulted in material prejudice to the accused or caused miscarriage of justice. 
• Thus, the issue before the Court was whether there was material prejudice caused to the accused. 
• The two incriminating circumstances on which there was no examination under Section 313 of CrPC were:  
  • That the appellant exhorted to kill Arun Kumar and others 
  • The appellant caught hold of the deceased to enable Mahinder Kumar to stab on his chest repeatedly.  
• The Court held that there was material prejudice and blatant miscarriage of justice because: 
  • The appellant shared the common intention was based on the two incriminating circumstances which were not put to the appellant under Section 313 of CrPC. 
  • Ultimately as a result of trial conviction was done under Section 302 of IPC with the aid of Section 34 of IPC and the appellant was awarded with life imprisonment consequently. 
• The Court finally held that the incident occurred more than 29 years ago, and the appellant had already undergone incarceration for more than 12 years, hence, if he is again subjected to examination under Section 313 of CrPC it would cause further prejudice them. 
• Hence, it was held that the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained.  

What is Examination of Accused Under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973?  

• Section 313(1) of CrPC provides that in every inquiry or trial, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court- 
  • May at any stage, without previously warning the accused put such questions to him as the Court considers necessary. 
  • Shall, after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defense, question him generally on the case. 
• Provided that in a summons case, where the Court has dispensed with the   personal attendance of the accused, it may also dispense with his examination under clause (b). 
• Section 313 (2) provides that no oath shall be administered to the accused when he is examined under sub-section (1). 
• Clause (3) provides that the accused shall not render himself liable to punishment by refusing to answer such questions, or by giving false answers to them.  
• Clause (4) provides that the answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial, and put in evidence for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence which such answers may tend to show he has committed.  
• Clause (5) provides that the Court may take help of Prosecutor and Defence Counsel in preparing relevant questions which are to be put to the accused and the Court may permit filing of written statement by the accused as sufficient compliance of this section. 
• Section 351 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) provides for the same.  

What are the Landmark Cases on Section 313 of CrPC? 

• Raj Kumar @ Suman v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023): 
  • The law under Section 313 of CrPC was summarized in this case as follows: 
  • It is the duty of the Trial Court to put each material circumstance appearing in evidence against the accused separately, specifically and distinctively.  
  • Material circumstance is a circumstance on the basis of which the prosecution is seeking conviction. 
  • The object is to enable the accused to explain any circumstance appearing in evidence against him. 
  • The Court must eschew the material circumstance not put to the accused from consideration while dealing with the case of the accused. 
  • The failure to put material circumstance to the accused amounts to serious irregularity and will vitiate the trial if it is shown to have caused prejudice to the accused.  
  • If irregularity in putting material circumstance to the accused does not result in failure of justice, it is a curable defect. While deciding whether the defect can be cured one of the considerations is the passage of time from the date of incident. 
  • In case the irregularity is curable even the Appellate Court can question the accused on material circumstances not put to him. 
  • The case can be remanded to the Trial Court in a given case from the stage of recording the supplementary statement of the accused under Section 313. 
  • While deciding if prejudice is caused to the accused the delay in raising the contention is only one of the several factors to be considered.   
• Shobit Chamar and Anr v. State of Bihar (1998): 
  • Where a plea of non-compliance with Section 313 was raised for the first time before the Supreme Court and it is proved that no prejudice is caused to the accused it cannot be said that the trial was vitiated. 
• Indrakunwar v. State of Chattisgarh (2023): 
  • The Supreme Court again laid down the law on Section 313 of CrPC: 
    • The intent of the section is to establish a dialogue between the Court and the accused. 
    • The accused may or may not admit his involvement or may even offer an alternative version of events or interpretation. 
    • The statement cannot be made the sole basis of conviction and is neither a substantive nor a substitute piece of evidence. 
    • It does not discharge but reduces the burden of prosecution. 
    • This statement is to read as a whole and one part cannot be read in isolation. 
    • Such a statement is not on oath and hence cannot qualify as evidence under Section 3 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA); however inculpatory aspect of the statement may be used to lend credence to the case of the prosecution. 
    • The circumstances not put to the accused should not be considered as no opportunity has been afforded to explain them. 
    • The Court must put in the form of questions all incriminating circumstances to the accused. 
•  Jai Prakash Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022): 
  • The Supreme Court in this case held that Section 313 of CrPC confers a valuable right upon the accused to establish his innocence and can be considered as a constitutional right under Article 21 of the Constitution. 
  • The Court also held that all the circumstances must not be bundled together as such exercise would defeat fair opportunity and is nothing but empty formality.