Source – Supreme Court

Why in News?

The bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Pankaj Mittal held that the High Court has done material irregularity by failing to put material circumstances during the examination of appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

• The Supreme Court gave this observation in the case of Nababuddin @ Mallu @ Abhimanyu v. State of Haryana.

What is the Background of Nababuddin @ Mallu @ Abhimanyu v. State of Haryana Case?

• The appellant was convicted under Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS).
• They are convicted of possessing poppy straw without a license or permit.
• The Chief Parcel Supervisor caught a total of ten bags in five parcels, five bags containing 20 Kilograms of poppy straw each and the other five bags containing 21 Kilograms each.
• The accused had the railway receipt of those parcels, and the Special Court recorded a finding that though the contraband was recovered during transit, the persons possessing railway receipt of the parcels shall be deemed to have control over the contraband and, thus, in conscious possession thereof.
• The appellant contended before the court that material fact which is the railway receipt which stood in his name had not been put to him in his examination under Section 313 of CrPC

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The SC observed that “As the only material circumstances pleaded by the prosecution against the appellant were not put to him, a serious prejudice has been caused to the appellant's defense”.
• The court further added that while allowing the appeal that, it was a serious material illegality committed by the HC.

What is Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?

• About:
  • Section 313 is in Chapter XXIV of the CrPC, which deals with general provisions as to inquiries and trials.
  • The primary objective of this section is to give the accused an opportunity to be heard and present their version of events before the court.
• Legal Framework: Power to Examine the Accused:

(1) 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—

(a) may at any stage, without previously warning the accused, put such questions to him as the Court considers necessary;

(b) shall, after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence, 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).

(2) No oath shall be administered to the accused when he is examined under sub-section (1).

• Interpretation and Key Features:
  • Personal Examination of the Accused:
    • The essence of Section 313 lies in the personal examination of the accused by the court. This allows the accused an opportunity to clarify any doubts arising from the evidence presented against them.
    • The court has the discretion to ask questions at any stage of the inquiry or trial. This flexibility ensures that the accused can respond to specific points as they arise during the proceedings.
  • No Prior Warning:
    • Sub-section (1)(a) of Section 313 empowers the court to put questions to the accused without providing prior warning.
    • This is in line with the principle that the accused should respond spontaneously and truthfully, without having the opportunity to fabricate a response.
  • Questioning After Prosecution Witnesses:
    • Sub-section (1)(b) mandates that the court shall question the accused after the prosecution witnesses have been examined but before the accused is called upon for their defense.
    • This sequencing ensures that the accused is aware of the evidence against them before presenting their defense.
  • Dispensation in Summons Cases:
    • The proviso to Section 313(1)(b) allows the court to dispense with the examination of the accused in summons cases where their personal attendance has been dispensed with.
    • This recognizes the practicalities of certain cases where the physical presence of the accused may not be required.
  • No Administration of Oath:
    • Sub-section (2) explicitly states that no oath shall be administered to the accused during their examination under Section 313.
    • This is in contrast to the examination of witnesses who are required to take an oath before providing their testimony.

What is the Landmark Judgment Cited in the Case?

While dealing with Section 313 the SC referred to its judgment in Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023) where it summarized the law related to 313 CrPC in the points mentioned below:

• It is the duty of the Trial Court to put each material circumstance appearing in the evidence against the accused specifically, distinctively and separately.
  • The material circumstance means the circumstance or the material on the basis of which the prosecution is seeking his conviction.
• The object of examination of the accused under Section 313 is to enable the accused to explain any circumstance appearing against him in the evidence.
• The Court must ordinarily eschew material circumstances not put to the accused from consideration while dealing with the case of the particular accused;
• The failure to put material circumstances to the accused amounts to a serious irregularity. It will vitiate the trial if it is shown to have prejudiced the accused;
• If any irregularity in putting the material circumstance to the accused does not result in failure of justice, it becomes a curable defect.
  • However, while deciding whether the defect can be cured, one of the considerations will be the passage of time from the date of the incident;
• In case such irregularity is curable, even the appellate court can question the accused on the material circumstance which is not put to him; and
• In a given case, the case can be remanded to the Trial Court from the stage of recording the supplementary statement of the concerned accused under Section 313 of CrPC.
• While deciding the question whether prejudice has been caused to the accused because of the omission, the delay in raising the contention is only one of the several factors to be considered.