statement 313

Advocatetanmoy Law Library

Legal Database and Encyclopedia

Criminal Practice

How and when to file a written statement U/S 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?

Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
Click to share on X (Opens in new window)

It may relevantly be pointed out here that sub-section (5) inserted in Section 313 Cr.P.C. by the Act of 2009, enables the Learned Trial Court Judge to take the assistance of the Public Prosecutor and the Defence Counsel, for preparing the questions under Section 313 Cr.P.C, which are to be scrutinised by the Learned Trial Court Judge and adopted with or without modifications. Filing of written statement by the Accused to the questions put by him suffices to comply with the said provision of law. [Sikkim High Court High Court High Court Judges in England and Wales handle complex and tough cases, sitting in London and traveling to court centers around the country. They preside over serious criminal and important civil cases, and support the Lord and Lady Justices in hearing appeals. High Court Judges are commonly referred to as ‘Mr/Mrs/Ms Justice surname’ and are given the prefix ‘The Honourable’. They are assigned to the King’s Bench Division, the Family Division, or the Chancery Division. The King’s Bench Division focuses on civil wrongs and judicial review, the Family Division deals with family law, and the Chancery Division handles various cases including company law and probate. Judges are appointed through a rigorous process overseen by the Judicial Appointments Commission. -Rabin Rai vs State of Sikkim-Crl. A. No.15 of 2022- dt 21st September 2023]

In Parsuram Pandey v. State of Bihar; (2004) 13 SCC 18 the Supreme Court Supreme Court The Court of last resort. Supreme Court of India (26/01/1950), Supreme Court of USA (1798), Supreme Court of UK (1/10/2009), Supreme Court of Canada (1949), International Court of Justice (22/05/1947), > Supreme Court Network has held that section 313, Cr.P.C. is imperative to enable an accused to explain away any incriminating circumstances proved by the prosecution. It is intended to benefit the accused and by way of its corollary, it benefits the court also in reaching the final conclusion and its intention is not to nail the accused but to comply with the most salutary and fundamental principle of natural justice i.e. audi alteram partem Audi alteram partem Asst. Commissioner Commercial Tax v. M/s Shukla and brothers (2010) 4 SCC 785 : “9. The increasing institution of cases in all Courts in India and its resultant burden upon the Courts has invited attention of all concerned in the justice administration system. Despite heavy quantum of cases in Courts, in our view, it would neither be permissible nor possible to state as a principle of law, that while exercising power of judicial review on administrative action and more particularly judgment of courts in appeal before the higher Court, providing of reasons can never be dispensed with. The doctrine of audi alteram partem has three basic essentials. Firstly , a person against whom an order is required to be passed or whose rights are likely to be affected adversely must be granted an opportunity of being heard. Secondly , the concerned authority should provide a fair and transparent procedure and lastly, the authority concerned must apply its mind and dispose of the matter by a reasoned or speaking order. This has been uniformly applied by courts in India and abroad.” as explained in Asraf Ali v. State of Assam; (2008) 16 SCC 328.

The word “ may” (not mandatory but directory/discretionary) in clause (a) of subsection (1) in section 313 Cr.P.C indicates that even if the court does not put any question under that clause the accused cannot rise any grievance for it. But if the court fails to put the needed question under clause (b) subsection it would result in the handicap to the accused and he can legitimately claim A Claim A claim is “factually unsustainable” where it could be said with confidence before trial that the factual basis for the claim is entirely without substance, which can be the case if it were clear beyond question that the facts pleaded are contradicted by all the documents or other material on which it is based. that no evidence Evidence All the means by which a matter of fact, the truth of which is submitted for investigation, is established or disproved. Bharatiya Sakshya (Second) Adhiniyam 2023 , without affording him the opportunity to explain, can be used against him.

In Brajendra Singh Vs State of M.P ( 2012 (2) SCC (Crl) 409) wherein it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Statement of an accused recorded when he was examined U/sec 313 Cr.P.C, can be used as evidence in so far as it supports the prosecution case. The Same principle would be applicable for the case of Written Statement in Cl 5.

313. 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 Summons It means an application to the Court in relation to an action or appeal which has to be served on other parties or non‑parties. -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 subsection (1).

(3) The accused shall not render himself liable to punishment by refusing to answer such question, or by giving false answers to them.

(4) 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 had committed.

(5) 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.

Note: The provisions of Sub-section (5) is apparently permissive whereas the examination of the accused u/s 313(1) CrPC in question-answer form alone, is mandatory. It is true that a mandatory provision overrides an enabling provision. But there is a declaratory tag at the end of the second part of the Sub-section (5) that permitting the accused to file W/S shall be necessary in compliance of Sec.313 CrPC. Therefore, if an accused is permitted to file W/S, the mandatory provision is automatically complied with.

In Gian chand and others Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2013 SC 3395 Wherein it was held that it would not be enough for the accused to show that he has not been questioned or examined on a particular circumstance in section 313 Cr.P.C, rather he must show that such non-examination has actually and materially prejudiced him and has resulted in the failure of the Justice.

In State of M.P. v. Ramesh , (2011) 4 SCC 786, “The statement of the accused made under Section 313 CrPC can be taken into consideration to appreciate the truthfulness or otherwise of the prosecution case. However, as such a statement is not recorded after administration of oath and the accused cannot be cross-examined his statement so recorded under Section 313 CrPC cannot be treated to be evidence within the meaning of Section 3 of the Evidence Act. 1872 . Section 315 CrPC enables an accused to give evidence on his own behalf to disprove the charges made against him. However, for such a course, the accused has to offer in writing to give his evidence in defence. Thus, the accused becomes ready to enter into the witness box, to take oath and to be cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution and/or of the accomplice, if it is so required.”

In Munish Mubar v. State of Haryana; AIR 2013 SC 912, the court held that it is obligatory on the part of the accused while being examined under section 313, Cr.P.C. to furnish some explanation with respect to the incriminating circumstances associated with him and the court must take note of such explanation even in a case of circumstantial evidence so as to decide whether or not the chain of circumstances is complete. The same view was taken in the case of Mushir Khan v. State of M.P.; AIR 2010 SC 762.

The Public prosecutor & the defence counsel to help the court in preparing questions u/s 313 CrPC: Sec. 313(5) of the CrPC as inserted vide amending Act No. 25 of 2005 w.e.f. 23.6.2006 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”.

The accused can file written statement after obtaining permission of the court and that would be sufficient compliance of the requirement contemplated under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. By virtue of the aforesaid amendment of Cr.P.C., the Section has become self-contained in the matter of dispensation of personal attendance of the accused during the examination. Therefore, the law on the point is codified that the accused if intended can seek for the permission of the court to dispense him from being personally present before the court for facing the examination as envisaged under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C and thereby resort to the alternate arrangement of filing his explanation to the questions in the form of a written statement. The court ought to have allowed such a request when placed for it’s consideration.

Sec-232 CrPC Acquittal

If after taking the evidence for the prosecution, examining the accused ( u/s 313) and hearing the prosecution and the defence on the point, the Judge considers that there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence, the judge shall record an order of acquittal.

In this view of the matter, the circumstances which were not put to the appellant in his examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 have to be completely excluded from consideration. [Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116]

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Basavaraj R.Patil & Ors vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2000 (8) SCC 740 recognized and accepted the hardship caused to the accused which has been followed in Keya Mukherjee (supra). It is stated that by introducing SubSection (5) of Section 313 Cr.P.C. the legislature has given statutory recognition to the right of the accused to give explanation by a written statement. Sub-Section (5) to Section 313 Cr.P.C. is not limited in its application to proviso to 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C.

Section 243(1) of the Code enables the accused, who is involved in the trial of warrant case instituted on police report, to put in any written statement. When any such statement is filed the Court is obliged to make it part of the record of the case. Even if such case is not instituted on police report the accused has the same right (vide Section 247). Even the accused involved in offences exclusively triable by the Court of sessions can also exercise such a right to put in written statements [Section 233(2) of the Code]. It is common knowledge Knowledge η γνώση (Greek), scientia (scientia), ज्ञानम्‌ (Sanskrit), 知识 Zhīshì (China) > Wnen an informed person digest the data receiver through sense his organs or intuition, digest it through electro-neuro function and make it part of his psyche, then it is called Knowledge . Vedic Nasadiya Sukta questioned the possibility of ultimate truth or knowledge. that most of such written statements, if not all, are prepared by the counsel of the accused. If such written statements can be treated as statements directly emanating from the accused, hook, line and sinker, why not the answers given by him in the manner set out hereinafter, in special contingencies, be afforded the same worth.

Section 233 Cr.P.C provides:

“233(1) Where the accused is not acquitted under Section 232, he shall be called upon to enter on his defence and adduce any evidence he may have in support thereof.

(2) If the accused puts in any written statement, the Judge shall file it with the record. (3) If the accused applies for the issue of any process for compelling the attendance of any witness or the production of any document or thing, the Judge shall issue such process unless he considers, for reasons to be recorded, that such application should be refused on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice.”

The aforesaid Section makes provision in it for the accused to put his defence in the form of a written statement. It means that the accused can remain absent in the proceeding before the court by causing a written statement containing the defence to be put forth through his counsel.

Article 39 A obliges the State to secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid by suitable legislation or schemes, or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities. Solely on the reason of the accused being a member of an economically weaker section, he ought not to have been denied with his constitutionally recognized right to consult and defend in view of the right of equality before law and equal protection of law enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution Constitution The Constitution encompasses the global system of rules governing constitutional authority. Simply reading selected provisions of the written text may be misleading. Understanding the underlying principles, such as federalism, democracy, constitutionalism, the rule of law, and respect for minorities, is crucial. Democratic institutions must allow for ongoing discussion and evolution, reflected in the right of participants to initiate constitutional change. This right entails a reciprocal duty to engage in discussions. Democracy involves more than majority rule, existing within the context of other constitutional values. Therefore, a profound understanding of these principles informs our appreciation of constitutional rights and obligations. Read more of India India Bharat Varsha (Jambu Dvipa) is the name of this land mass. The people of this land are Sanatan Dharmin and they always defeated invaders. Indra (10000 yrs) was the oldest deified King of this land. Manu's jurisprudence enlitened this land. Vedas have been the civilizational literature of this land. Guiding principles of this land are : सत्यं वद । धर्मं चर । स्वाध्यायान्मा प्रमदः । Read more and the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Article 39A of the Constitution reads:

“39A. Equal justice and free legal aid.- The State shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities.”

“If the accused declines to file W/S, still the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him can be used against him, in my considered opinion Opinion A judge's written explanation of a decision of the court. In an appeal, multiple opinions may be written. The court’s ruling comes from a majority of judges and forms the majority opinion. A dissenting opinion disagrees with the majority because of the reasoning and/or the principles of law on which the decision is based. A concurring opinion agrees with the end result of the court but offers further comment possibly because they disagree with how the court reached its conclusion. . Analogically speaking, if the accused person refuses to answer a question put to him during his examination in the question-answer form, it cannot be said that such circumstance cannot be used against him. The provisions u/s 313 CrPC, which are based on the principle of “Audi Alterum Partem” (no man should be condemned unheard), are about giving the accused an opportunity of being heard and not actual hearing of the accused. If he fails to avail the opportunity or exercise his right, he faces the consequences. …..There can be no sustainable plea that the accused is/was not aware of the allegations made against him in the evidence. The law [Sec.313(5)], when it provides that the Court can take help of the defence in preparing the questions for examination of the accused in the earlier system, presumes that the defence is aware of the facts & circumstances enshrined in the evidence and, reasonably so, when the entire evidence was recorded in the presence of the accused and/or his lawyer. Therefore, theory of prejudice also does not come into play here, in my considered opinion”.

CrPC Section 313

Code of criminal procedure.

Right to Remain Silent: Implications for Section 313 CrPC

The Indian court system adopts an adversarial model, where the State prosecutes an accused person. The actual adjudication in an adversarial system largely precedes on the presumption that the State and the accused are on equal footing in their fight to bring out the judicial truth, with the occasional aid provided by the judge. However, the underlying reality remains that the prosecution is backed by an omnipotent sovereign . This is then, the political reality in which we seek to zealously guard our fundamental rights through legal machinations that include procedural safeguards for accused persons, so as to counter the might of the State.

Ordinarily seen as a simple code laying down the procedures to be followed prior to, during, and after a criminal trial, one often misses the fact that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [‘CrPC’] is also a charter of the civil liberties and rights of an accused person. The enactment of special legislations that seek to escape the purview of the CrPC, is an attempt at the erosion of these liberties.

This article seeks to demonstrate how one of the core rights afforded to an undertrial, i.e., the right to not be a witness against oneself under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, is diluted through interpretations afforded to §313 of the CrPC by the judiciary. To this end, the article is divided into three parts that address the following: (1) the scheme of §313 of the CrPC and its interpretations; (2) the interaction between §313 of the CrPC and Article 20(3); and (3) jurisprudential concerns that have arisen from the misutilisation of §313.

Scheme of S 313
313 of the CrPC empowers the court to put questions to the accused. The objective is to secure a fair trial and an opportunity of hearing for the accused. The underlying principle is that one should not be condemned unheard, and to satisfy the requirement of audi alteram partem .

Under §313(1)(b), the court is mandated to put questions regarding incriminating circumstances to the accused. This duty is to be exercised irrespective of whether the accused wishes to explain the circumstances, and the strength of the prosecution’s case. The questions must be simple, clear, and capable of being answered directly. On the other hand, the accused is merely mandated to personally appear before the court for his examination. Where personal attendance is burdensome, they must respond by way of a signed affidavit. The call of the court cannot be ignored by the accused.

In that sense, therefore, the accused has a right to be given an opportunity to explain the circumstances being put against him by the prosecution, and the CrPC casts a duty on the court to afford this opportunity to the accused. Indian criminal adjudication has two crucial features, highlighted above: first, it is adversarial, and therefore, advocate-driven; and second, the prosecution is run by the State. Naturally, then, when the liberty of a person is brought down to the strength of their advocate against the might of the omnipotent State, the CrPC carves out the power for the judge to personally engage with the accused. However, because no oath is administered to the accused, any statements, denials, or silence from the accused cannot be treated as evidence under the Indian Evidence Act. The statements, however, may be used to appreciate the evidence put forth by both the parties. The proceedings under §313 therefore, are most certainly not in the nature of an inquiry, or intended to relieve the burden of the prosecution by forcing the accused to admit the circumstances, if they are unable to explain the same.

Concerningly, however, the duty to answer the call of the court has been fashioned into a duty to provide an explanation, by the Supreme Court (‘SC’). It is now well-accepted that courts may draw adverse inferences if the accused remains silent or supplies false explanations on facts which are subsequently held to be established or proved (see Ramnaresh v. State of Chhattisgarh ). While this does not establish a duty per se, the connotations attached to silence/explanations imply that the accused must answer the court’s questions. Consequently, in another case, the SC has held that it is indeed obligatory for the accused to explain the incriminating circumstances (see Munish Mubar v. State of Haryana ).

It is the fashioning of what was originally a right arising out of the principles of natural justice into an obligation upon the accused, that is examined in the rest of this article.

2. Interaction between Article 20(3) and §313

The right to silence is a principle of common law, understood to mean that courts should not conclude the guilt of a person merely on the basis of his failure to answer questions put to him. In the Indian context, the right to silence is derived from Article 20(3) of the Constitution.

Article 20(3) protects an accused from being compelled to testify against himself. In other words, it provides a right of silence to the accused. This right to be silent extends to questions, even outside of courtroom proceedings, which tend to self-incriminate a person. This includes any admissions by an accused which increase the probability of guilt of a person, even if they do not reach the standard of a confession. Further, in Nandini Satpathy v. PL Dani , it was held that even if a person faces the threat of prosecution in relation to a different criminal proceeding than the one in which they are being questioned, they may validly exercise their right to be silent and refuse to answer such questions.

To illustrate: A is accused of having committed a theft on the night of May 10 in Allahabad, and in truth, he was committing a theft in Lucknow on the concerned night. When questioned about his alibi for the night of May 10, A has the right to remain silent as truthfully answering the question exposes him to prosecution for the theft in Lucknow.

Coming back to §313, the element of compulsion is introduced in §313 when judges use the stick of adverse inferences to draw out explanations from the accused. This compels the accused to speak lest inferences are drawn against him possibly leading to conviction, thereby prejudicing the right to be silent. To buttress this argument, this section discusses first, the history and scheme of the CrPC, while locating §313 within the same; and second, the public policy underlying Article 20(3) and §313.

(a) Legislative History and Scheme of CrPC

The provisions of the CrPC generally militate against state-induced compulsions even at the stage of trial, so as to operationalise and guarantee the protection under Article 20(3). Consider §161(2), which prevents a person from being compelled to answer questions that would expose them to a criminal charge during questioning by police. The protection further continues in §315(1)(b), by providing that the refusal of the accused to appear as a witness or lead evidence shall not give rise to any presumption against him nor be made the subject of any comment. Quite naturally then, §313(3) explicitly protects the accused against punishment for silence or giving false answers. This is also why no oath is administered to the accused before a §313 statement is recorded.

The legislative history of the present CrPC lends credence to this. The CrPC of 1898 had a comparable provision in its §342(2), which additionally allowed the court to draw inferences from the silence of the accused. This aspect was specifically excluded by the legislature in the new CrPC of 1973 while preserving the remainder of the section, undoubtedly in reinforcement of Article 20(3) .

(b) Public Policy underlying Article 20(3) and §313

Ordinarily, law strives towards the discernment of truth through regulated means. Yet, in certain spaces, a deliberate decision has been made by the state to privilege human dignity above the search for the objective truth. For example, confessions made pursuant to torture or to police officers are inadmissible, though they may be true. In cases of dowry death and rape , when foundational facts are proved, the court is mandated to presume the guilt of the accused person – again, irrespective of the truth. Similarly, the voice of the accused is protected at the cost of truth by Article 20(3). This protection is intertwined with the accused’s rights to life, privacy, and dignity, intended inter alia to protect the accused from torture and other encroachments upon bodily integrity. The right to silence has further been recognised as being foundational to human dignity and expressive freedom .

Under the garb of securing the truth, the courts of India have been misutilising §313 to elicit self-incriminations, in the nature of confessions. A confessional statement under Section 164 of the CrPC is an incriminating statement made by the accused to a Magistrate. Such confessions are admissible only when untainted by fear, under §24 of Indian Evidence Act (‘IEA’). Their veracity and reliability is secured procedurally , through means such as the safeguards of judicial custody, medical check ups, mandatory duty of the court to ascertain threats and fears plaguing the accused, and provision of legal representation. Gross failure in abiding by these procedures renders the confessions unreliable (see Dara Singh v. Republic of India ). Likewise, the drawing of adverse inferences is a limited discretion awarded to courts through §114 of IEA. It allows a court to draw an inference against the concerned party, such inference not arising from any established facts or evidence but by virtue of the operation of law in very specific circumstances. Both confessions and adverse inferences are regulated through evidentiary and procedural standards, none of which apply to the silence/statements of the accused under §313.

On the other hand, even if one were to privilege truth as an overriding objective of the criminal law, the very absence of mechanisms such as oath administration and the availability of the right of cross-examination, nullifies the possibility of unearthing the so-called truth.

In view of this background and the legislative scheme of the CrPC, the natural and defensible conclusion is that §313 examination is part of the accused’s right to hearing and is not in the nature of an inquiry. The refusal to exercise this right or the manner of exercising this right should not lead to adverse consequences for the accused. To do so otherwise would not only interfere with the dignity and expressive freedom of the accused, but also the fairness of trial.

3. Jurisprudential Concerns

Silence or false explanations have proven pernicious for an accused. Vigilant courts, time and again, have sought to institute safeguards by providing that adverse inferences do not become a substitute for proof ( Shankerlal Gyarasilal Versus State of Maharashtra , Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia v. State of Gujarat ). An adverse inference from silence or false explanations is allowed only if the facts of the prosecution case stand fully established . Here, ‘fully established’ simply means that the circumstances alleged by the prosecution must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, without any gaps or broken links. The weaknesses in the defence of the accused cannot substitute the duty of the prosecution. This is because the statements of the accused do not constitute evidence in and of themselves, as they are not made under oath ( Raj Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan ). Thus, any silences or explanations can, therefore, merely be used to lend credibility to the prosecution case ( Mohan Singh v. Prem Singh ).

However, various judgments of the SC appear to have established a sliding scale, with cases on the other side of the spectrum adopting standards that are quite contradictory. For instance, the SC in Mani Kumar Thapa v. State of Sikkim used silences and false explanations of the accused, and inferences therefrom, as a missing link to complete the chain of circumstances against the accused and condoned the passing of consequential orders against the accused for false explanations. In such cases, conjectures often substitute reasoned inferences. Naturally, then, it is much less surprising when another bench of the SC holds that the denials of established facts by the accused under Section 313, may be treated as incriminating evidence against them ( Munna Kumar Upadhyaya v. State of Andhra Pradesh ).

At this stage, a distinction between false explanations and silence must be addressed. Prima facie , it appears that while silence of an accused may be protected, within the scheme of the CrPC, false explanations should not be treated on the same level. A false statement, it may be argued, is acceptable fodder for drawing adverse inferences against the accused. However, I argue that false explanations are the unfortunate corollary of the near-compelled testimony that is extracted from an accused under §313. Until and unless the right of silence of the accused is safeguarded and entrenched into the procedures of criminal administration, any false explanation provided by the accused must be presumed to be driven by fear, panic, or ignorance. The effect of panic on an innocent person has long been recognised by the SC even in relation to far more incriminating conduct on the part of an accused. For instance, the mere fact of absconding by an accused does not lead to the inference of guilt, as even an innocent person may become panic-stricken and try to evade arrest ( Matru v. State of UP , State v. Mahender Singh Dahiya , and Sk Yusuf v. State of WB ).

It may be useful yet again to invoke the comparison with a confession to understand this better. The very value of a confession resides in the fact that there exists no compulsion upon an accused to make the confession, and in fact, it is the duty of the Magistrate to actively investigate any possibility of the same having been compelled. Any other statement (including 313 statements) made by the accused post arrest, with regard to which compulsion is not thoroughly investigated and ruled out and where the threat of adverse inference from silence looms large, also necessitates the presumption that it is a compelled testimony.

The jurisprudence is, then, not only internally contradictory, but violative of accepted legal standards, including that statements under §313 do not constitute evidence.

The treatment of the statements of the accused as a link in the chain of circumstances further jeopardiaes the presumption of innocence (itself a human right and fundamental to dispensation of justice), as succinctly explained by Sopinka J of the Supreme Court of Canada:

“ If silence may be used against the accused in establishing guilt, part of the burden of proof has shifted to the accused. In a situation where the accused exercises his or her right to silence at trial, the Crown need only prove the case to some point short of beyond a reasonable doubt, and the failure to testify takes it over the threshold. The presumption of innocence, however, indicates that it is not incumbent on the accused to present any evidence at all, rather it is for the Crown to prove him or her guilty. ”

Within the present jurisprudential framework, the practical effect of silence or false explanations supplied by the accused under §313 is that it may be used adversely against the accused. At minimum, the court will draw adverse inferences which lend credence to the existing prosecution case. However, in my opinion, and for the reasons argued above, this practice violates Article 20(3) of the Constitution and the right to presumption of innocence.

The right to presumed innocence has not been given the status of a fundamental right in the Indian legal system. Yet, its status as a universal human right, crucial to the fairness of criminal trials, has been widely recognised in democratic legal systems. As Ronald Dworkin has stated, the presumption of innocence is the fundamental right of an innocent person not to be convicted. This presumption is justified for the principled fact that a criminal trial jeopardises individual liberty, and pits an individual against a State, which already wields enormous power over such individuals.

In India, there has been a shift towards suppressing the right to silence, justified in terms of efficiency of prosecutions and truth-seeking efforts of courts. The Indian judiciary, an idiosyncratic inheritance of the common law, has long stood against the might of the State as the “sentinel on the qui vive ” , on guard to protect fundamental rights. However, in recent times, the courts of India have more curiously taken on the role of a pragmatic mediator , seeking to balance the apparently competitive and equal concerns of the sovereign against the rights of the individual accused. Such incremental inroads into fair trial guarantees that exist in light of the power differential between the accused and the State ought to worry us, especially since we live in an era where the conceptions of rights, in popular imagination, is that they are the benevolence of the sovereign. The political economy within which our laws operate and power is negotiated runs on this presumption of charity. One does not need to look beyond the voices of the Prime Minister as well as the erstwhile Chief Justice of India, Sharad Bobde to see its manifestation.

Stuti is part of the Litigation team at Project 39A.

One Comment

[…] courts have decided that adverse inference cannot be used as evidence in an effort to continuously offer protections. In general, if an accused’s statement is […]

Comments are closed.

Clarity in the Shadows: Decoding Supreme Court’s PMLA Verdict in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India

South Africa v. Israel – International Court of Justice [Provisional Measures Order Summary]

South Africa v. Israel – International Court of Justice [Summary of Arguments by Israel | Part 2/2]

Other stories, standalone mental facts and disclosures under section 27 of the evidence act, 1872, vijay madanlal choudhary v. union of india: an opportunity lost to identify “police officers” .

Search bar.

Legal Queries
Files
Online Law Courses
Lawyers Search
Legal Dictionary
The Indian Penal Code
Juvenile Justice
Negotiable Instruments
Commercial Courts Act
The 3 New Criminal Laws
Matrimonial Laws
Data Privacy
Court Fees Act
Commercial Law
Criminal Law
Procedural Law
The Constitutional Expert
Matrimonial
Writs and PILs
CrPC Certification Course
Criminal Manual
Execution U/O 21
Transfer of Property
Domestic Violence
Muslim Laws
Indian Constitution
Arbitration
Matrimonial-Criminal Law
Indian Evidence Act
Live Classes
Writs and PIL

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Examinations Under 313 CrPC: Guidelines for Trial Courts

Introduction:

Karnataka HC Issues Guidelines For Trial Courts On Examination Of Accused Under Section 313 CrPC

In a very significant development, we see that the Karnataka High Court has as recently as on September 21, 2021 in a learned, latest, laudable and landmark judgment titled Meenakshi and anr vs State of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No. 2170 of 2021 has issued a slew of significant guidelines which are to be followed by the trial courts while examining the accused and recording their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It must be mentioned that the Court among other things said that the questions to the accused must be framed in simple language and only incriminatory evidence must be picked out from oral and documentary evidence. It is worth mentioning that this notable judgment was delivered by Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar while hearing a petition by two persons, Meenakshi and Thrinethra challenging the refusal by the Sessions Judge to record statements and mandating that they answer in a single word, i.e., "true or false".

First and foremost, it is mentioned that, "This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to quash the 313 statement recorded by order dated 22.02.2021 (Annexure-A) passed in S.C.No.10/2018 which is pending on the file of the Hon’ble II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mysuru and consequently allow the petition to record fresh 313 statement against the petitions as sought for. This Criminal Petition having been heard and reserved on 30.08.2021, came on for pronouncement on this day."

To start with, the ball is set rolling in para 1 of this cogent, commendable and convincing order authored by a single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Justice Mr Sreenivas Harish Kumar of Karnataka High Court wherein it is put forth that, "The petitioners are accused No.1 and 2 in Sessions Case No.10/2018 on the file of II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 r/w Section 34 of IPC. They have invoked jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. recorded by the Sessions Judge."

Going forward, the Bench then points out in para 2 that, "Sri. N. Tejas, learned counsel for the petitioners, taking me through the questions framed by the Sessions Judge argued that the Sessions Judge has totally overlooked the importance of examining the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. His argument was that Section 313 Cr.P.C. is an important stage during criminal trial, and since it affords an opportunity to the accused to give an explanation to the incriminating circumstances spoken to by the prosecution witnesses, the questions to be put to the accused must be specifically directed to the incriminating circumstances only and they should not be mere mechanical reproduction of evidence in examination-in-chief. He argued that in the case on hand, there are two sets of questionnaires which almost contain same questions. Many a question do not contain incriminating evidence against the accused. The questions are not properly articulated and they are framed in complex sentences rendering it difficult for the accused to understand them. He also submitted that although the accused offered explanation for some of the questions, the Sessions Judge refused to record them and insisted on giving the answer in a single word – either ‘false’ or ‘true’. His another submission was that the defence counsel was ready to assist the court in framing the questions as it is permitted now in view of amendment brought to Cr.P.C by Act 5 of 2009 (w.e.f.31.12.2009). Therefore it was his submission that the statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C are to be set aside, and a direction may be given to the Sessions Judge for examining the accused once again properly and record their explanations that they want to give."

As we see, the Bench then observes in para 3 that, "I have gone through the questions framed by the Sessions Judge. He has prepared two sets of questionnaires as there are two accused. But the questions in the two sets are almost common; they are lengthy; and the Sessions Judge has verbatim reproduced the evidence in examination-in-chief in the form of questions. The questions thus framed by the Sessions Judge do not serve the intendment of Section 313 of the Code."

Be it noted, the Bench then envisages in para 4 that, "Section 313 of the Code embodies the fundamental principle of ‘Audi Alteram Partem’. Since this is the stage where the accused gets an opportunity to explain an inculpatory evidence against him, the questions must be framed in such a manner as he or she understands them. The questions must be simple and specific to the evidence against the accused. A long string of questions couched in complex sentences must be avoided. Several distinct matters should not be rolled up, every question must cover a distinct incriminatory evidence. While questioning the accused, not only the incriminatory oral evidence but also the documents and the material objects indicating adverse evidence should be brought to the notice of the accused. In this context, I find it very apt to refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of TARA SINGH vs STATE [AIR 1951 SC 441]. It is held :

"32. I cannot stress too strongly the importance of observing faithfully and fairly the provisions of section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is not a proper compliance to read out a long string of questions and answers made in the committal court and ask whether the statement is correct. A question of that kind is misleading. It may mean either that the questioner wants to know whether the recording is correct, or whether the answers given are true, or whether there is some mistake or misunderstanding despite the accurate recording. In the next place, it is not sufficient compliance to string together a long series of facts and ask the accused what he has to say about them. He must be questioned separately about each material circumstance which is intended to be used against him. The whole object of the section is to afford the accused a fair and proper opportunity of explaining circumstances which appear against him. The questioning must therefore be fair and must be couched in a form which an ignorant or illiterate person will be able to appreciate and understand. Even when an accused person is not illiterate, his mind is apt to be perturbed when he is facing a charge of murder. He is therefore in no fit position to understand the significance of a complex question. Fairness therefore requires that each material circumstance should be put simply and separately in a way that an illiterate mind, or one which is perturbed or confused, can readily appreciate and understand. I do not suggest that every error or omission in this behalf would necessarily vitiate a trial because I am of opinion that errors of this type fall within the category of curable irregularities. Therefore, the question in each case depends upon the degree of the error and upon whether prejudice has been occasioned or is likely to have been occasioned. In my opinion, the disregard of the provisions of section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, is so gross in this case that I feel there is grave likelihood of prejudice.""

To put things in perspective, the Bench then enunciates in para 5 that, "The practice has been to prepare as many sets of questionnaires as the number of accused are. In all the sets, same questions are repeated, but to show that every accused is questioned individually, the signature of only one accused is taken on each set of questionnaire. Preparing the questionnaires equal to number of accused is not the correct procedure and it is also a waste of time. It is enough if only one set of questions is prepared, but what is required is to frame distinct questions as against every accused. If a witness speaks at a time against two or more accused, a single question against them may be framed but their answers must be recorded separately one after another."

It is worth noting that the Bench then brings out in para 6 that, "In the year 2009, amendment was brought to section 313 Cr.P.C. Probably with a view to saving the time of the trial court judges, they are permitted to take the assistance of the Public Prosecutors and the defence counsel in preparing the questions. Therefore, the trial court judges may direct the Public Prosecutors and the defence counsel to submit the questions to be put to the accused, and the questions prepared by them may be adopted after scrutiny and modification if required."

As it turned out, the Bench then notes in para 7 that, "Sub-section (5) of section 313 of Cr.P.C inserted by Act 5 of 2009 enables the court to permit the accused to file written statement as sufficient compliance of the section. Therefore the trial court, may, depending upon facts and circumstances, instead of recording the statement in question and answer form, permit the accused to file his written statement. If this procedure is resorted to, discretion must be exercised wisely."

Most significantly, what forms the real crown of this extremely commendable judgment is then encapsulated in para 8 wherein it is held that, "From the above discussions, the following guidelines are given :-

(i) Only the incriminatory evidence must be picked out from oral and documentary evidence.

(ii) The questions must be framed in a simple language, as far as possible in short sentences.

(iii) The attention of each accused must be drawn to the evidence adverse or against him/her.

(iv) Sometimes, a witness may give evidence as regards the collective overt act of two or more accused and in that event a single question may be framed, but each accused must be questioned individually, and their answers must be recorded separately.

(v) It is also possible that two or more witnesses may speak identically regarding the overt act of an accused. In that event, the substance of their evidence may be put in a single question.

(vi) The attention of the accused must be drawn to the marked documents and material objects if they are incriminatory.

(vii) The accused must be questioned regarding various types of mahazars or panchanamas only if they contain incriminatory evidence.

(viii) Accused need not be questioned in regard to evidence given by the formal witnesses, for example, an engineer who has drawn the sketch of scene of occurrence, a police constable submitting the FIR to the Magistrate, a police constable carrying seized articles to FSL, a police officer who has only submitted the charge sheet without conducting investigation, etc., unless anything incriminatory is found in such evidence.

(ix) If there are two or more accused, it is not necessary to prepare as many sets of questionnaires as the number of accused are. It is enough to prepare a single questionnaire, but the question must be directed towards a particular accused individually or two or more accused collectively. When a question is framed pointing out collective overt act of two or more accused, the answer of each accused must be recorded separately one after another.

(x) By virtue of amendment brought to Cr.P.C, the trial court judges may take the assistance of the Public Prosecutors and the defence counsel for framing the questions.

(xi) In case the Public Prosecutor or the defence counsel submits a set of questions, the trial court judges must scrutinize and adopt them with or without modification.

(xii) The court should record the answer or explanation given by the accused and should not insist upon the accused to give answer in one word, ‘false’ or ‘true’."

Finally, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 9 that, "As discussed already, in the case on hand, the questions are not properly framed. It is also alleged that the trial court judge did not record explanation given by the accused. For these reasons I find a ground for allowing this petition and pass the following

The petition is allowed, the statements of the accused recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C are set aside. The trial court is directed to re-examine the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C following the guidelines set out above. The Registrar General of the High Court is hereby directed to circulate this order to all the trial courts in the State. The Karnataka Judicial Academy is hereby directed to prepare model questionnaire and circulate the same to all the trial courts for their guidance."

In sum, while it is true that these guidelines have been issued by the Karnataka High Court for all the trial courts in the State but it cannot be denied that even the trial courts of other States must also always bear it in account as they are really commendable and worth emulating! If the same is done, it would be a lot easier to properly examine the accused under Section 313 of CrPC. No denying it!

Latest Judgments

The Right Invested In Intellectual Property Remains With The Person Even If He Has Announced Renunciation : The Delhi High Court In The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust India
Accused Can't Be Released On Bail Based On Victim's Stupidity: High Court Of Punjab And Haryana In: Vijender Vs. State Of Haryana
The Duration Of An Employee-s Service And Not Their Retirement Age Determines Their Entitlement To Gratuity: Supreme Court
Adverse Opinions Cannot Be Formed By Assessing Officer Solely Based On Director-s Failure To Respond To Notices: High Court Of Calcutta In Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Kolkata V. Atlantic Dealers Pvt. Ltd.
Supreme Court Opines That Courts Must Rule Out Frivolous Allegations Made Out Of Vengeance In Marital Disputes To Safeguard The Sanctity Of Marriage And Prevent Abuse Of Legal Provisions
Prisoners Should Be Provided With A Chance To Maintain Semblance Of Normalcy And Reestablish Connections, And The Provision Of Furlough Serves To Fulfil This Very Objective: New Delhi High Court
The Disciplinary Proceedings Holding A Similar Set Of Charges Cease To Exist If The F.i.r Lodged Is Quashed In The Court Of Law: The High Court Of Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh
The Statement Of The Prosecution Witness To Be Treated As A Piece Of Substantial Evidence When Essentials Of Section 299 Of The Crpc Are Satisfied
Kerala High Court Upholds Rights And Dignity Of Sexual Assault Victims: Ensuring Access To Safe And Legal Abortions
The Actual Duties Performed By The Employees Have To Be Considered Rather Than The Additional Work Discharged To Determine The Employees- Classification As -workmen-: Bombay High Court

Business Law
Constitutional Law
Labour & Service Law
Legal Documents
Intellectual Property Rights
Property Law
Top Members
Share Files
LCI Online Learning

Member Strength 9,52,032 and growing..

Download LCI APP

Our Network Sites

We are Hiring
Terms of Service
Privacy Policy

Lawyersclubindia Search

Whatsapp groups, login at lawyersclubindia.

Alternatively, you can log in using:

Post Your Article
My Favorites
Register your Copyright Online : We offer copyright registration right from your desktop Call us at Ph no: 9891244487
File Mutual Consent Divorce : Right Away Call us at Ph no: 9650499965
Online legal Advice : Receive professional Legal Solution within 48hrs
Contact a lawyer From your City - Lawyers in India
File caveat in Supreme Court

SC Summarises 10 Well-Settled Principles Of Section 313 CrPC

It must be certainly most candidly conceded at the very start before stating anything else that the essence of this learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment titled Premchand vs The State of Maharashtra in Criminal Appeal No. 211 of 2023 and cited in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 168 that was pronounced as recently as on March 3, 2023 in the exercise of its criminal appellate jurisdiction are the 10 well-settled principles of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as laid down in para 15 so very clearly, cogently and convincingly which also constitutes the real backbone! Of course, Section 313 basically pertains with the power to examine the accused. It is clearly mentioned by the Apex Court that 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 as stated in para 17. It is also made clear in para 16 that 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. At the very outset, this notable judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice Dipankar Datta for a Bench of the Apex Court comprising of himself and Hon’ble Mr Justice S Ravindra Bhat sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that: This appeal, by special leave, calls in question the judgment and order dated 06th August, 2019 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Nagpur, whereby Criminal Appeal No 211 of 2016 carried by the appellant assailing his conviction under section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC’) and sentence of life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.6,000.00 and a default sentence of one year as well as sentence of seven years of rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.4,000.00 for the offence punishable under section 307, IPC was dismissed. To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 that: The prosecution case was that Nandkishor Korde (for brevity ‘the victim’) was murdered on 26th September, 2013 at around 5:00 pm by the appellant. The other three victims, namely Namdeo Korde (P.W.2), Vilas Charde (P.W.3), and Kunal Babhulkar (P.W.4) received stab injuries caused by a knife, also inflicted by the appellant. A report was lodged soon thereafter by the mother of the victim Rekhabai Korde, (P.W.1), leading to registration of an F.I.R. under sections 302 and 307, IPC. The post-mortem report dated 27th September, 2013 (Ext.35) recorded stab injury to neck of the victim as the probable cause of death. As it turned out, the Bench then discloses in para 3 that: Consequent to the registration of the F.I.R., Police Inspector Bharat Thakre (P.W.8) took up the investigation, visited the spot of the incident and prepared spot panchnama. He found the spot of the incident stained with blood and recovered a blood-stained knife, a wooden stick stained with blood, three pairs of chappals, two spectacles, and a blue dot pen. P.W.8 arrested the appellant and since he too had received injuries, he was referred to the Rural Hospital, Katol for his medical examination. Further, the Bench reveals in para 4 that: Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet under sections 302 and 307, IPC was filed before the concerned court against the appellant. Upon committal, charges for the above-said offences were framed to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As we see, the Bench then mentions in para 5 that: The prosecution examined 8 (eight) witnesses to support of its case. None was examined on behalf of the defence. However, the appellant filed a written statement, which we propose to refer to at a later part of this judgment. The Additional Sessions Judge largely relied on the statements of P.W.2, P.W.3, and P.W.4 to convict the appellant. The Court concluded that the appellant committed the murder of the victim with the knife (Art.1) and also attempted to commit the murder of P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4. The defence of the appellant appeared to the Court to be false and the prosecution was held to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. This was followed by the convictions and sentences, noted above. What’s more, the Bench then points out in para 6 that: The aforesaid judgment having been challenged before the High Court, the relevant Division Bench was of the view that the findings did not warrant any interference and that the appeal was devoid of any merit; hence, it was dismissed. While citing the relevant case laws, the Bench mentions in para 14 that: A bench of three Hon’ble Judges of this Court in State of U.P. vs Lakhmi (1998) 4 SCC 336 has extensively dealt with the aspect of value or utility of a statement under section 313, Cr. P.C. The object of section 313, Cr. P.C. was explained by this Court in Sanatan Naskar vs. State of West Bengal (2010) 8 SCC 249. The rationale behind the requirement to comply with section 313, Cr. P.C. was adverted to by this Court in Reena Hazarika vs. State of Assam (2019) 13 SCC 289. Close on the heels thereof, in Parminder Kaur vs. State of Punjab (2020) 8 SCC 811, this Court restated the importance of section 313, Cr. P.C. upon noticing the view taken in Reena Hazarika (supra) and M. Abbas vs. State of Kerala (2001) 10 SCC 103. Most significantly, the Bench then lays bare in para 15 what constitutes the nucleus of this learned judgment propounding that: What follows from these authorities may briefly be summarized thus:

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;
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;
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;
the accused may even admit or own incriminating circumstances adduced against him to adopt legally recognized defences;
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;
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);
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;
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
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;
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 short, it is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 23 that: Most importantly, the circumstances in which the incident occurred does clearly negate any suggestion of premeditation in mind. That apart, it cannot be overlooked that while the victim was middle-aged, the appellant was in his late fifties. At the time of the alleged incident, apart from P.W.s 2 and 3, Shankarrao Fartode, Umrao Charde, Ramesh Korde (all three not examined) were present at the spot, as per the version of P.W.2. It is indeed improbable that in the presence of such persons, the appellant wielding a weapon like a knife would come to the spot with an intention to commit the offence of murder overpowering all of them without any sufficient reason or provocation. In our opinion, the trial court lacked in objectivity by not examining the facts and circumstances as to whether the situation was such as is likely to reasonably cause an apprehension in the mind of the appellant that there was imminent danger to his body, of either death or grievous hurt being caused to him, if he did not act in private defence. To impute intention to cause death or the intention to cause that particular injury, which proved fatal, in these circumstances seems to be unreasonable. Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 25 that: Taking an overall view of the matter, we are inclined to the opinion that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Exception 4 to section 300, IPC. Briefly stated, the Bench holds in para 26 that: The upshot of the above discussion is that this is not a case where the appellant could be convicted for murder of the victim. His conviction for murder and sentence of life imprisonment are liable to be set aside. It is ordered accordingly. While taking a considerate and practical approach, the Bench postulates in para 27 that: However, we think it proper to convict the appellant under section 304, Part II, IPC. Since the appellant has suffered imprisonment for more than nine years and he is presently in his late sixties, we consider incarceration for such period as adequate punishment. The appellant shall be released from custody forthwith, unless required in connection with any other case. Adding more to it, the Bench adds in para 28 that: Since the appellant has already served the sentence imposed for commission of offence under section 307, IPC, based on a conviction which is highly suspect, we allow it to rest. Still more, the Bench directs in para 29 that: The appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Finally, the Bench concludes by holding in para 30 that: Before parting, we observe that this is a case where the police should have investigated the injuries suffered by the appellant too. The appellant also did not pursue any available remedy to right the wrong. However, in view of little less than a decade having passed since the incident took place, any direction to investigate at this distance of time may not yield any fruitful result. We, therefore, refrain from issuing such direction. All told, we thus must be now absolutely clear after having a cursory look at this remarkable, robust, rational and recent judgment that what are the salient principles of Section 313 of the CrPC which we have already discussed quite elaborately and the Apex Court has certainly taken the most balanced stand in deciding this case. It thus merits no reiteration that all the Trial Courts and so also the High Courts must definitely pay heed and strictly abide by what is laid down so very elegantly, eloquently and effectively in this leading case! No denying it! Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate, s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave, Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate

Indian Legal Solution

Examination of accused under section 313 of crpc.

EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED UNDER SEC.313 OF CRPC

Author: Parth Jaisinghani, Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad

INTRODUCTION

This article will scrutinize Sec 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(herewith referred to as CrPC) which talks about accused person examination. This section was imbibed to fulfill the principle of natural justice that is “It is best than ten guilty escape than one innocent suffer” was said by Blackstone. This section also puts light on the very famous maxim “Audi ultra Partum” which says nobody should be punished unheard. This article tries to educate the meaning of Section 313 of CrPC, ways of prosecuting the accused under this section, what points need to be noted while examining, what is noncompliance of this section and what its exception is.

ELUCIDATING THE SECTION 313 OF CRPC

Section 313 of the CrPC 1973 deals with the power to examine the accused. It is enshrined in Chapter XXIV of the Act and has four clauses. Section 313(1) of CrPC deals with when the accused is allowed in a trial or inquiry to explain any circumstance personally to the judge, which is against evidence appearing against him. This clause is further divided into two parts (a) and (b). In part, (a) it is said that may at any stage court be able to ask the accused any question without informing the accused previously which courts find necessary. Part (b) talks about shall be questioned for his defense after witness for the prosecution have been examined. Section 313(2) of CrPC talks about no oath will be taken by the accused during his trial in sub-section (1). Section 313(3) of CrPC talks about accused cannot be punished if he refused to answer any such question of the court or if he is giving a false statement. Section 313(4) of CrPC deals with the answer of the accused may be put against him for any other offense, which he has committed.

Therefore, the main objective of this section is to make the court enable to ask questions to the accused personally without the lawyer’s interference. In this section, the court plays a proactive role that is controlling a situation rather than responding to it to find out the truth of the case. The court does so for the sake of the principle of natural justice. Clause 5 of the act was inserted by the amendment made in the year 2008, which says advocate can interfere in this matter.

Suggestive Reading,

Charge in CrPC

CASES THAT HELPED IN REFINING THIS SECTION

Dr. Sunil Clifford Daniel vs State of Punjab in this case court said the accused should be informed that if he does not want to answer the question it is allowed but his incriminating statement will be taken into consideration.

In Basavaraj R. Patil and Others vs. the State of Karnataka and Others, the court said that a missing link can be provided if the accused gives a false answer. The same case also talked about Sec313 (1) (b) of CrPC and said no examination of an advocate can be done but they can give questions that should be asked to the accused. Also, counsel is protected and they cannot be examined.

In the case of Satyavir Singh Rathi vs. State Tr.C.B.I. The court said the statement was given by the accused cannot act as evidence against him under Sec313 (1) (b) of CrPC.

IS THIS SECTION JUST A FORMALITY?

The scope of this section is quite paramount than a mere formality. In the case of Sanatan Naskar and Another vs State of West Bengal, the court said that every piece of evidence against the accused should be put in front of him and the accused person should be given a fair chance to explain them all.

The scope of this section was laid down in the case of Sanatan Naskar and Anr. Vs West Bengal the observation made from this case were a) to help the accused confront or prove himself innocent directly to the court. b) To test and confirm the fact lay down by the prosecution.

The term accused is being defined in the case of Karamalli Gulamalli, which said an accused is a person who is being scrutinized by the court and examined by the court and not a person who is being charged by the same person in another case.

Classification of offences under CrPC

WAYS OF PROSECUTING THE ACCUSED UNDER THIS SECTION

The court can question the accused at any stage of inquiry under section 313(1) of CrPC. Clause 2 talks about no oath to be taken by the accused when he is answering the questions. Now everyone is in a dilemma in which this section was inserted? The reason behind the insertion of this section is to remove mental stress and pressure on the accused and he should be free to say whatever he feels like. When the court is questioning the accused, the question should be backed by incriminating evidence against the accused. The questions need to be logical and clear. While the court is formulating the question, the court should look at the background of the accused that how much he is qualified to make questions understandable to him. Besides, the court has to take extrajudicial care while formulating questions for an illiterate person. This is done because if the vague question is asked so it will not serve the purpose of natural justice.

In the case of Subhash Chand vs the State of Rajasthan, the court said the main objective of asking the questions to accused is that to allow the accused person to tell him the facts are pulling him into the conspiracy and he has an opportunity to defend him.

In the case of Munid Mubar vs the State of Haryana, it was stated that the court must present all incriminating material as well as circumstantial evidence against the accused so as he can explain the same. Further, in the case of Mushir Khan Vs State of Madhya Pradesh, the court elaborated on the meaning of circumstantial evidence.

POINTS TO BE NOTED WHILE EXAMINING THE ACCUSED BASED ON PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:

The accused were involved in the scene.
The role played by the accused in committing the crime.
The main objective of the crime.
Medical evidence revealing anything against him.
Accused confession.
Accused of giving an extra-judicial confession.
Dying declaration.

NON COMPLIANCE OF THIS SECTION

In the case of Gyan Chand vs State of Haryana here for the first time, there was a plea before Supreme Court for noncompliance with this Section. The court said unless the examination is done in a proper and preserves way the court cannot make any prejudiced opinion against the accused.

The Supreme Court told that an accused person cannot accuse a trial judge merely stating the questions asked to him by the authority were “extremely casual and per functioning”. This decision was given by a bench comprising of Justice Navin Sinha and B.R. Gavai. In this case, an appeal was filled by Fainil Khan and Mir Shaukat who were chargers for murder and given a sentence of life imprisonment. They appealed to the apex court and said the trial judge was “extremely casual and perfunctory” while he was examining. Besides, the accused was not given a chance to defend them. So while Supreme Court was answering this question of the law said that they must clearly show that this “no examination has actually and materially prejudiced him and has resulted in the failure of justice”. The court also said that right of a fair trial to be proportionate with the rights of victims and society in a broader was for egalitarianism. The name of the case was Fainil Khan vs. the State of Jharkhand

Section 313 of CrPC gives power to the court to examine the accused. It acts as a shield of protection for the accused. It is personal conservation between the trial court judge and the accused. This stage comes after examining the prosecuting the witness and before the accused is called for his defense. In this section, the accused person does not take an oath and cannot be amount to punishment if he refuses to answer any question or give a false answer.

Statement recorded under section 161 or CRPC Is Dying Declaration After His Death.

EXCEPTIONS TO THIS SECTION

Each case is different from one other. Therefore, when the accused had pleaded guilty to the charge then this section should not be taken into consideration. Besides, the court cannot put inquiry when there are not any circumstances appearing against the accused.

In the case of Asray Ali vs the State of Assam, the court said that this section is for the benefit of the accused. It also benefits the court to reach the conclusion and help to serve the fundamentals of natural justice.

Recently the court said, “The circumstance not put to an accused under Section 313 of the CrPC cannot be used against him and must be excluded from consideration, the Supreme Court has observed”. The decision was given by Justice RF Nariman while exonerating a rape accused. The accused was charged by the trial court under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code for “raping a woman on the pretext of marriage”. This decision was upheld by the High Court. Therefore, they appealed to Apex Court in front of a bench having Justice Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee stating his investigation was very casual and he needs a fair trial under Section 313 of CrPC. The court referred to the case of Naval Kishore Singh vs the State of Bihar and said facts of marring a person, which have ambiguity, has to deal in a limited time of occurrence and cannot be taken over a long period merged with aware constructive action of not protecting it. The name of the case was Maheswar Tigga vs The State of Jharkhand.

Law makes it mandatory to put every piece of evidence in front of the accused, which proves him guilty. Section 313 was inserted for the principle of natural justice and fairness. The accused should always be given a chance to prove him innocent. This section helps an accused to prove him innocent in the eyes of law and helps the judiciary to serve justice in a better way. “It is best than ten guilty escape than one innocent suffer” was said by Blackstone

The Hindu Artice : A trial juge cant be accused of bial merely on nature of questions asked: SC

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/a-trial-judge-cant-be-accused-of-bias-merely-on-nature-of-questions-asked-sc/article29629543.ece

Bare Act of CrPC, 1973
EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 OF CR.P.C by Shobha Kumari

Click to access workshopscjrajam.pdf

Livelaw.in :Circumstances not put an accused under section313CrPC Cannot be used against Him: SC

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/sc-circumstances-not-put-to-an-accused-under-section-313-crpc-cannot-be-used-against-him-163664

Examination of accused under section 313 of CrPC. By E-Justice India

EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 OF Cr.P.C

Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News

Case Briefs

Explained | Supreme Court’s verdict on evidentiary value of disclosure statements under S.27 of Evidence Act

Supreme Court said that admissibility and credibility are two distinct aspects, and the latter is really a matter of evaluation of other available evidence.

Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
Click to print (Opens in new window)
Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)

evidentiary value of disclosure statements

Supreme Court: In a criminal appeal filed by two convicts against the judgment and order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, wherein the Court dismissed the appeals filed by the convicts against their conviction, the division of S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta* , JJ. , while setting aside the impugned conviction orders, said that their convictions cannot be justified solely on the basis of illusory knowledge regarding their involvement in the crime. Further, it directed immediate release of the convicts from custody.

Background:

A complaint was registered by the complainant that, while the complainant was in her house, four persons rang the doorbell. When her servant answered the door, all four persons armed with a pistol forcefully entered the house. They tied up the hands and legs of the complainant and her servant, threatened to kill them, and proceeded to rob the complainant of silver and gold jewellery, cash, and other valuables by taking the keys to the locker. The convicts remained at the complainant’s residence till 2:30 pm before fleeing. Based on the complaint, an FIR. was registered at around 4:30 pm against four unknown persons under Section 394 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and all of them were subsequently arrested.

In all, five accused persons were convicted and sentenced for different offences punishable under IPC vide the common judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 28-11-2019.The aforesaid judgment having been confirmed by the High Court, all the convicts preferred Special Leave Petitions before Supreme Court challenging the common judgment. The SLPs of the three convicts were dismissed and the judgment and order of the High Court affirming their conviction and sentence left undisturbed. However, notice was issued on the SLPs preferred by the remaining two convicts.

During the investigation, it was revealed that the two convicts were not present at the complainant’s house during the incident and were apprehended at a later stage of the investigation when it was discovered that one of them had purchased the stolen articles, and the other was involved in hatching the conspiracy.

One of the convicts assailed his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC and sentence of rigorous imprisonment of three years with a fine of Rs. 5,000 and a default sentence of three months. The other convict assailed his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 120-B , IPC and sentence of rigorous imprisonment of ten years with a fine of Rs. 5,000 and a default sentence of three months.

The Court said that there can be no two opinions that the quality of evidence led by the prosecution in the present case to nail the two convicts was wholly untrustworthy for convicting them and the Trial Court as well as the High Court erred in not acquitting them.

The Court noted that all the convicts made disclosure statements to the Investigating Officer (‘IO’) whereupon recovery of money, jewellery, etc. was effected. One of the convicts’ involvements was primarily based on the disclosure statements made by convicts where they admitted to selling the stolen articles to him. Similarly, both the courts below, in convicting the other convict, largely relied upon the disclosure statement made by that convict himself, as well as one of the convicts, who confessed of giving Rs.3,000 from the stolen money and storing a country-made pistol along with three cartridges at the convicts’ house.

The Court said that disclosure statements per se, unaccompanied by any supporting evidence, cannot be deemed adequate to secure a conviction. Although disclosure statements hold significance as a contributing factor in unriddling a case, they are not so strong a piece of evidence sufficient on its own and without anything more to bring home the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, on the evidentiary value of disclosure statements of co-accused, the Court reiterated that the courts have hesitated to place reliance solely on disclosure statements of co-accused and used them merely to support the conviction.

The Court took note of Shiv Kumar v. State of M.P ., (2022) 9 SCC 676 , wherein the Court declined to place undue reliance solely on the disclosure statements of the co-accused.

The Bench said that there is not a single iota of evidence except the disclosure statements of the convicts, which supposedly led the IO to the recovery of the articles stolen from the two convicts. The Court held that admissibility and credibility are two distinct aspects, and the latter is really a matter of evaluation of other available evidence. The statements of police witnesses would have been acceptable, had they supported the prosecution case, and if any other credible evidence were brought on record. While the recoveries made by the IO under Section 27, Evidence Act upon the disclosure statements by all the convicts could be held to have led to discovery of facts and may be admissible, the same cannot be held to be credible in view of the other evidence available on record.

The Court further said that while property seizure memos could have been a reliable piece of evidence in support of conviction of the convict who had purchased the stolen articles, but the seizure witnesses turned hostile, thus the standalone evidence of the I.O. on seizure cannot be deemed either conclusive or convincing. The common version of all the seizure witnesses was that they were made to sign the seizure memos on the insistence of the ‘daroga’ and that too, two of them had signed at the police station. Thus, there is no scope to rely on a part of the depositions of the said witnesses, as the seizure loses credibility.

Concerning the other convict who was convicted for hatching the conspiracy, the Court said that there is contradiction in the depositions of the IO and the complainant. The IO deposed that he, upon the disclosure by co-accused successfully recovered a sum of Rs. 3,000 notes seized the same in the presence of witnesses. However, the complainant in her deposition has stated that the convicts did not take any Rs.1000 note from her house.

Thus, the Court held that as the sole connecting evidence against the two convicts was the recovery based on their disclosure statements, along with those of the other convicts, but this evidence is not sufficient to qualify as “fact … discovered” within the meaning of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 .

Concerning the statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’), the Court reiterated that the Trial Courts have been cautioned against recording statements in a casual and cursory manner, as not the mere quantity of questions posed to the accused, but rather the content and manner in which they are framed holds importance.

Further, on conviction of one of the convicts under Section 411 , IPC , the Court noted that the Trial Court convicted him based on a presumption under Section 114(a), Evidence Act, asserting that his possession of stolen articles shortly after the theft, with knowledge of its stolen nature, was adequate to hold him guilty under Section 411 , IPC . The Court said that the Trial Court erred in drawing such a presumption of fact without considering other factors. It took note of A. Devendran v. State of T.N ., (1997) 11 SCC 720 and said that a presumption of fact under Section 114(a), Evidence Act must be drawn considering other evidence on record and without corroboration from other cogent evidence, it must not be drawn in isolation. The present case serves as a perfect example of why such a presumption should have been avoided by the Trial Court. The conviction, solely relying on the disclosure statements made by the convict himself and the other convicts, does not suffice to warrant a presumption under Section 411 , IPC . Further, it said that it would not be unreasonable to presume that a goldsmith, who has to deal in ornaments and jewelleries on a day-to-day basis, would obviously be in possession of a significant quantity of ornaments at his shop. No evidence worthy of consideration was adduced by the prosecution to prove that the said convict had retained the articles either with dishonest intent and with knowledge or belief of the same being stolen property.

Further, concerning the convcition of another convict under Section 120-B , IPC , the Court was intrigued that among all five accused persons, only one convict has been convicted for criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B , IPC . A single individual cannot conspire with oneself; thus, the Court vitiated the conviction of the said convict under Section 120-B , IPC .

[ Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of M.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 984 , decided by 11-09-2023 ]

*Judgment Authored By: Justice Dipankar Datta

Know Thy Newly Appointed Supreme Court Judge- Justice Dipankar Datta

Advocates who appeared in this case :

For Appellant(s): Advocate-On-Record Harmeet Singh Ruprah

Advocate Nikhil Tyagi

Advocate-On-Record Ritika Sethi

Advocate Vishal Prasad

For Respondent(s): Advocate-On-Record Sunny Choudhary

Advocate Manoj Kumar

Advocate Karan Bishnoi

Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE

Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE

Section 125 CrPC: Can the second wife be entitled to maintenance from her husband?

Delhi HC granted bail to a man accused of raping woman he met on dating app on pretext of marriage

Do convicts have a fundamental right to procreate? Watch to know what Delhi High Court recently held

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Book release of 8th edition of “Criminology, Penology and Victimology” revised by Sanjay Vashishtha

Join the discussion, leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Top Stories
Accused's Burden To Prove His...

Accused's Burden To Prove His Defence Taken U/s 313 CrPC Is Not Beyond All Reasonable Doubts: Supreme Court

Livelaw news network.

3 Aug 2021 6:43 AM GMT

Accuseds Burden To Prove His Defence Taken U/s 313 CrPC Is Not Beyond All Reasonable Doubts: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that the burden of proof on an accused in support of the defence taken under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure is not beyond all reasonable doubt as it lies on the prosecution to prove the chargeThe accused has merely to create a doubt and it is for the prosecution then to establish beyond reasonable doubt that no benefit can flow from the same to the...

The accused has merely to create a doubt and it is for the prosecution then to establish beyond reasonable doubt that no benefit can flow from the same to the accused, the bench of Justices Navin Sinha and R. Subhash Reddy said while acquitting a woman accused of murdering her sister in law.

In this case, the deceased died in the matrimonial home in about one and a half years of the marriage suffering 95% burn injuries. The younger brother of deceased aged about 11 - 12 years was the sole eye witness. The sister in law of the deceased, along with other accused were charged for murder. The Trial Court convicted her relying on the testimony of the child witness that she stuffed cloth in the mouth of the deceased after which she was set on fire by other accused. The High Court dismissed her appeal.

In appeal, the accused contended that she had taken a specific defence in her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that she resided in her matrimonial home, which was separate and at a distance. It was further contended that the allegation against her by the child witness was never put to her under Section 313 CrPC thus depriving her of a valuable opportunity 1 of defence which vitiates her conviction.

"We are of the considered opinion that in absence of any question having been put to her in this regard under Section 313 CrPC the appellant has been seriously prejudiced in her defence. It has repeatedly been held that the procedure under Section 313 CrPC is but a facet of the principles of natural justice giving an opportunity to an accused to present the defence. The burden of proof on an accused in support of the defence taken under Section 313 CrPC is not beyond all reasonable doubt as it lies on the prosecution to prove the charge. The accused has merely to create a doubt. It will be for the prosecution then to establish beyond reasonable doubt that no benefit can flow from the same to the accused. The mere fact that the house of the appellant was at near quarters cannot ipso facto lead to a conclusion with regard to her presence in her parental home at the time of occurrence. It is a fact to be established and assessed from the evidence on record .", the court said accepting the accused's contention [referred to Janak Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1999) 9 SCC 125].

Not Deposed That Closed Was Taken From Her Mouth

The court noted that at no stage, the witness deposed that the cloth was taken out from her mouth, but stated that the deceased was speaking while she was being taken to hospital. "It stands to reason that if cloth was stuffed in the mouth of deceased she would have been unable to speak.", the bench noted. The bench also noticed that the doctor who performed post mortem also stated that no cloth was present in the mouth of the deceased and that all the 32 teeth were intact.

"The discussion and reasoning by the trial court that absence of any cloth in the mouth was irrelevant because if the deceased suffered hundred per cent burns the cloth naturally could not be available, suggesting that it would have been burnt also is completely fallacio us.", the bench said while observing that the evidence of child witness in this case attributing a specific role to the accused is not of such a sterling quality so as to inspire confidence in the court to base the conviction on the sole evidence of a child witness.

She was a daughter-in-law like the deceased herself

"She was a daughter-in-law like the deceased herself. The nature of the evidence makes it highly unlikely that she would have engaged in such actions. The benefit of doubt in the circumstances has to be given to the appellant. ", the bench said while setting aside conviction of the accused.

Mere absence of any corroborative evidence in addition to that of the child witness by itself cannot alone discredit a child witness.

Though, the court in this case disbelieved the child witness, it said that criminal jurisprudence does not hold that the evidence of a child witness is unreliable and can be discarded.

"A child who is aged about 11 to 12 years certainly has reasonably developed mental faculty to see, absorb and appreciate. In a given case the evidence of a child witness alone can also form the basis for conviction. The mere absence of any corroborative evidence in addition to that of the child witness by itself cannot alone discredit a child witness. But the Courts have regularly held that where a child 2 witness is to be considered, and more so when he is the sole witness, a heightened level of scrutiny is called for of the evidence so that the Court is satisfied with regard to the reliability and genuineness of the evidence of the child witness. PW-2 was examined nearly one year after the occurrence. The Court has, therefore, to satisfy itself that all possibilities of tutoring or otherwise are ruled out and what was deposed was nothing but the truth." [Referred to State of M.P. vs. Ramesh, (2011) 4 SCC 786]

Case: Pramila vs. State of Uttar Pradesh ; CrA 700 OF 2021 Coram: Justices Navin Sinha and R. Subhash Reddy Citation: LL 2021 SC 342

Click here to Read/Download Judgment

Back to News

Members of the U.S. Financial Sector to Explore Multi-Asset Settlement Using Shared Ledger Technology

Industry proof-of-concept (PoC) investigates potential of shared ledger technology to upgrade liquidity management and financing for domestic users of U.S. Dollars and Treasury securities.

May 8, 2024, New York, NY – In the current financial system, commercial bank money, wholesale central bank money, and securities such as U.S. Treasuries and investment grade debt all reside on separate systems. The tokenization of these instruments may enable settlement on a common regulated venue established under existing legal frameworks.

To explore this potential, members of the regulated U.S. financial sector today announced a Regulated Settlement Network (RSN) proof-of-concept (PoC) that will explore the feasibility of shared ledger technology to settle tokenized commercial bank money, wholesale central bank money, U.S. Treasury securities and other tokenized assets.

The RSN PoC envisions an interoperable network for multi-asset transactions that aim to operate on a 24/7, programmable shared ledger. Building on the results of a previous industry PoC , this project will further research the settlement of tokenized cash and securities on a common system.

The RSN PoC will be conducted in a test environment and will simulate multi-asset transactions in U.S. dollars. The PoC aims to highlight opportunities to improve the operation of multi-asset settlements for domestic users of financial instruments denominated in U.S. dollars.

Key aspects of the PoC include:

Scope : The PoC will simulate Delivery versus Payment (DVP) transactions denominated in U.S. dollars.
Industry Collaboration : The PoC reflects a collaborative effort by a diverse group of banks and other regulated financial industry participants to gain further consensus on the use of shared ledger technology in the U.S. financial system.
Legal Analysis : The PoC will include an analysis of whether the envisioned network may operate in line with existing laws, rules, and regulations or guidance in the United States or if any amendments to applicable legal framework(s) may be necessary.
Findings : Following the conclusion of the PoC, the group will publish the findings of the project as an important contribution to the understanding of next generation settlement models.
Future Research : The participants are not committed to any future phases of research once the PoC is complete.

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) will be serving as Program Manager for the RSN PoC. Participants in this project include the following institutions: Citi, J.P. Morgan, Mastercard, Swift, TD Bank N.A., U.S. Bank, USDF, Wells Fargo, Visa, and Zions Bancorp. Deloitte will be providing advisory services, and the participants intend to engage two additional vendors to provide the technology infrastructure and legal analysis for the PoC.

The PoC will also engage a group of U.S.-based project contributors, who will provide subject matter expertise and explore the applicability of connecting certain external solutions and platforms to the multi-asset ledger. The group of project contributors includes: The Bank of New York Mellon, Broadridge, DTCC, The International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Tassat Group, and the MITRE Corporation, who will engage as a non-commercial knowledge contributor.

The New York Innovation Center (NYIC) at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York will be a technical observer in this PoC to gain knowledge on the use of shared ledger technology as infrastructure to conduct transfers between regulated financial institutions, including settling tokenized wholesale central bank money, commercial bank money, and U.S. Treasury securities. The NYIC’s role in this project is narrowly focused on observing the participants’ research and experimentation with tokenized settlement assets.

Industry Commentary:

Charles de Simone, Managing Director at SIFMA which serves as the program manager for the PoC, said, “ This exploration of shared ledger technology is an important initiative to explore innovations working with digital forms of USD cash and securities, as market participants continue to innovate to support efficient, resilient capital markets.”

Debopama Sen, Global Head of Payments at Citi Services said, “A key element of the tokenization thesis is the potential to build more general-purpose venues for the settlement of financial transactions. In today’s digital economy, financial market infrastructures may need to settle a host of digital assets within well-defined legal frameworks. Citi looks forward to exploring the opportunities of this project, which brings together assets that currently live in separate silos into a 24/7, programmable, multi-asset settlement environment – and aims to do that in a collaborative manner across public and private sectors.”

Raj Dhamodharan, Executive Vice President, Blockchain & Digital Assets at Mastercard said, “As blockchain technology continues to mature, it will be critical for public and private organizations to partner closely to explore how it can be applied to solve for real-world pain points and improve efficiencies. The application of shared ledger technology to dollar settlements could unlock the next generation of market infrastructures – where programmable settlements are 24/7 and frictionless.”

Nick Kerigan, Head of Innovation at Swift, said, “Swift is pleased to continue supporting this collaborative innovation initiative as its focus turns towards multi-asset settlement.

Interoperability between ledgers – and between ledgers and existing market financial infrastructures – will be critical if shared ledger technology is to fulfil its potential. As with other initiatives around the world and as a long-term driver of, and advocate for, industry standardization, Swift looks forward to playing a key role alongside commercial banks and market infrastructures in the realisation of this proof of concept.”

Jonathan Prendergast, Head of U.S. Payments Strategy at TD Bank, said, “There is a potential to create a global, on-demand 24-7 system that can support settlement of financial assets – based upon the stability of sovereign fiat currencies – marrying the stability and safety of the current model with the speed and flexibility required in modern global commerce.”

Amanda CR Morgan, Senior Product Manager, Visa Money Movement, said, “It is great to collaborate with our industry partners and the public sector on the US Regulated Settlement Network. RSN presents an opportunity to explore the impact of innovations in shared ledger technology on settlement, an area often constrained by siloed infrastructures and processes. The RSN PoC has the potential to drive improvements and innovation in settlement, transparency, and money movement for the benefit of the market as a whole.”

Arushi Sood Joshi, Head of Distributed Ledger and Digital Assets Center of Excellence at Wells Fargo, said, “Building on prior public and private sector collaboration, Wells Fargo looks forward to continued partnership to explore both assets and deposits on a regulated settlement network. This combination holds the potential to improve speed and availability for USD settlements.”

Harris Simmons, Chairman and CEO of Zions Bancorporation, said, “The development of blockchain-enabled solutions that will lead to self-executing contracts and other promising products and services is exciting, but in order for this technology to achieve its full potential there’s also the need for interoperability between a wide variety of participants. The exploration of the envisioned Regulated Settlement Network is an exciting major step in that direction.”

Horacio Barakat, Head of Digital Innovation for Capital Markets at Broadridge Financial Solutions, said, “Interoperability between tokenized settlement assets could unlock new possibilities for multi-asset transactions. Distributed ledger technology is paving the way for innovative applications in capital markets, and the RSN as envisioned could be a real catalyst for streamlining transfers between financial institutions. Broadridge looks forward to conducting this PoC alongside key partners as a concerted effort to investigate potential shared ledger technology solutions.”

Media Contacts

Bank of New York Mellon – Ryan Wells, [email protected]
Broadridge – Gregg Rosenberg, [email protected]
Citi – Stephanie Hyon, [email protected]
DTCC – Kristi Morrow, [email protected]
Federal Reserve Bank of New York – Shelley Pitterson, [email protected]
ISDA – Christopher Faimali, [email protected]
J.P. Morgan – Nadine Youssef, [email protected]
Mastercard – Biz Cozine, [email protected]
MITRE Corporation – Robert Gallic, [email protected]
SIFMA – Katrina Cavalli, [email protected]
Swift – Rachel Lindsay, [email protected]
Tassat Group – Glen Sussman, [email protected]
TD Bank N.A. – Catherine Achey, [email protected]
U.S. Bank – Lindsey Gehrig, [email protected]
USDF – Rob Morgan, [email protected]
Visa – Matt Rowntree, [email protected]
Wells Fargo – Patrick Abberton, [email protected]
Zions Bancorp – Rob Brough, [email protected]

SIFMA Statement on Passage of Resolution Overturning SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin 121

Washington, DC, May 17, 2024 – SIFMA today issued the following statement from SIFMA president and CEO Kenneth E. Bentsen,…

Why the Basel III Endgame Must Be Re-Proposed

In this episode of The SIFMA Podcast, SIFMA's Joseph Seidel, Chief Operating Officer, and Dr. Peter Ryan, Managing Director, Head…

SIFMA Fixed Income Market Close Recommendations in the US, the UK, and Japan for the US Memorial Day Holiday

New York, N.Y., May 10, 2024 — SIFMA confirmed its previous recommendations for the U.S., the U.K., and Japan in observance…

We use cookies to provide our site visitors a valuable experience as well as relevant content and services. Please carefully review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use ; by using this website, you agree to the information set forth therein.

IMAGES

313
NRC Form 313A (AUD)
Statement u/s 313 CrPC by accused isn't substantive evidence u/s 139 NI
313 Angel Number: A Sign of Progress
(PDF) 313 Statement
313

VIDEO

Terrence Pollard issues official response to auditor @MartiBlagborough
Code Coverage
Sunday Evening W2 Service 04/23/2023
Q&A: From Personal Life to Music!
Remove Duplicate Letters
10 most famous tall blonde actresses in Hollywood 2023

COMMENTS

How and when to file a written statement U/S 313 of the Code of
The accused can file f written statement after obtaining permission of the court and that would be sufficient compliance of the requirement contemplated under Section 313 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. By virtue of the aforesaid amendment of Cr.P.C., the Section has become self-contained in the matter of dispensation of personal attendance of the accused ...
Critical analysis of Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
This shall also be noted by the courts as the recording of a statement of the accused under Section 313 is not a purposeless exercise. 4. Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam. The very purpose of examining the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to meet the requirement of the principles of natural justice, i.e., audi ...
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Union of India - Section Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 313. Power to examine the accused. 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 ...
Scope and Significance of Examination of Accused under Section 313
Methodology of Recording Statements. In Dehal Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, the court observed that the statement of the accused under Section 313, Cr.PC shall not be administered under oath. Accordingly, the statement would not be accepted as evidence under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Section 313 CrPC, Audi Alteram Partem, and the Rights of the Accused
The Supreme Court, however, noted that only two questions were put to the accused in his statement under Section 313, and called it perfunctory. It further held, "[T]he incriminating material is to be put to the accused so that the accused gets a fair chance to defend himself. This is in recognition of the principles of audi alteram partem."
PDF "EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED U/SEC.313 OF Cr.P.C"
statement so recorded under section-313 Cr.P.C, it cannot be treated as evidence within the meaning of Section-3 of the Evidence Act, 1872. In Rafiq Ahammad @ Rafi Vs State of Uttar Pradesh; A.I.R.2011 SC 3114 the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that "It is true that the statement u/sec.313 of Cr.P.C cannot be the sole basis for conviction of the ...
Examination of the Accused u/s 313 of CRPC
The examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr P C) by the trial court is popularly known as "313 examination" and the statement deriving out of it is called "313 Statement".. Purpose of 313 Examination. The purpose of 313 examination is primarily to provide the accused an opportunity to explain the actual facts about the incriminating circumstances ...
Section 313 Crpc: Facilitating Fair Trial Through ...
The statement under Section 313 is not considered evidence because the accused cannot be cross-examined based on those statements. However, if the accused chooses to testify in defence, their version can be examined through cross-examination. Implications of Failing to Follow Section 313 Requirements.
Section 313 CrPC
The Supreme, recently, observed that 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 ...
PDF SCOPE & SIGNIFICANCE OF EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313, Cr.P.C
3594, the court held that the statement of the accused under section 313, Cr.P.C. is recorded without administering oath. Therefore, it cannot be treated as evidence within the meaning of section 3 of the Evidence Act, 1872. It is pertinent to reproduce section 313, Cr.P.C. to make further discussion. " 313. Power to examine the accused.
CrPC Section 313
S. 313 : Power to examine the accused: Description; 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;
Right to Remain Silent: Implications for Section 313 CrPC
Any other statement (including 313 statements) made by the accused post arrest, with regard to which compulsion is not thoroughly investigated and ruled out and where the threat of adverse inference from silence looms large, also necessitates the presumption that it is a compelled testimony.
Supreme Court judgment on Section 313 of CrPC: Knowledge of material
The Court further examined the appellant's statement under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. It was observed that "If all the circumstances put to the appellant in his statement under Section 313 CrPC are carefully perused, any person of ordinary intelligence will get the impression that none of the prosecution witnesses has ...
Examinations Under 313 CrPC: Guidelines for Trial Courts
The petition is allowed, the statements of the accused recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C are set aside. The trial court is directed to re-examine the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C following the guidelines set out above. The Registrar General of the High Court is hereby directed to circulate this order to all the trial courts in the State.
Section 313 CrPC : Supreme Court Summarises 10 Well-Settled ...
State of U.P. v. Lakhmi - value of a statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Sanatan Naskar v. State of West Bengal - object of Section 313 Cr.P.C. Reena Hazarika v. State of Assam - rationale behind ...
S. 313 CrPC
The court also noted that, in his Section 313 statement, the accused had stated that he and the complainant belonged to opposing student parties and due to the animosity pertaining to the ...
SC Summarises 10 Well-Settled Principles Of Section 313 CrPC
It is clearly mentioned by the Apex Court that 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 as stated in para 17.
Examination of Accused Under Section 313 of CrPC
Section 313 (2) of CrPC talks about no oath will be taken by the accused during his trial in sub-section (1). Section 313 (3) of CrPC talks about accused cannot be punished if he refused to answer any such question of the court or if he is giving a false statement. Section 313 (4) of CrPC deals with the answer of the accused may be put against ...
PDF A Detailed Study on The Statement of Accused
The statement of the accusedi under Section 313ii of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. For the purpose of section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code the term accused can be defined as a person under-trial and under-examination by the court. It does not include an accused over whom the court is exercising jurisdiction in another trial.
[Explained] Supreme Court verdict on evidentiary value of disclosure
Concerning the statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC'), the Court reiterated that the Trial Courts have been cautioned against recording statements in a casual and cursory manner, as not the mere quantity of questions posed to the accused, but rather the content and manner in which they are framed holds ...
Sri. Loganathan. S vs S/O. Singaram on 29 October, 2021
The scope of Sec 313 of CrPC is wide and is not a mere formality. The object of recording the statement of the accused U/Sec 313 of CrPC, is to put all incriminating evidence to the accused, so as to provide him an opportunity to explain such incriminating circumstances appearing against it, in the evidence of the prosecution. The same is ...
Accused's Burden To Prove His Defence Taken U/s 313 CrPC Is ...
In appeal, the accused contended that she had taken a specific defence in her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that she resided in her matrimonial home, which was separate and at a distance. It ...
PDF PART III MILITARY RULES OF EVIDENCE
statement of the accused under Mil. R. Evid. 301- 306; (2) the accused is a witness and so requests; or (3) justice so requires. (d) Cross-Examining the Accused. By testifying on a preliminary question, the accused does not become subject to cross-examination on other issues in the case.
Members of the U.S. Financial Sector to Explore Multi-Asset Settlement
Industry proof-of-concept (PoC) investigates potential of shared ledger technology to upgrade liquidity management and financing for domestic users of U.S. Dollars and Treasury securities. May 8, 2024, New York, NY - In the current financial system, commercial