Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

Section 313 CrPC is not a formality the accused must be informed- Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court, an accused person under Section 313 CrPC must be given an explanation of the circumstances supporting the prosecution's case.

"If the accused is not informed of the significant circumstances that are brought up against him in the evidence that is intended to support his conviction, he will not be in a position to respond to them. He won't be able to adequately protect himself "Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S. Oka's bench made the statement.

The court made this observation while granting an appeal filed by a murder suspect who claimed that the Trial Judge had failed to inform the accused of material facts included in the prosecution's evidence in their statements pursuant to Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code and that a proper charge had not been made in accordance with Section 213 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The bench observed that although there is no charge filed against the accused accusing them of murder, evidence in this instance shows that they killed the deceased by utilizing sharp objects in their hands. According to the court, it was required to establish a charge in accordance with Section 213 by outlining the accused's method of committing the murder offence.

"The Court is duty bound to examine the entire record of the trial including all exhibited documents, depositions, and the statements of the accused recorded under Section 313," the bench continued. "When the Court of appeal is called upon to decide whether any failure of justice has been occasioned due to omission to frame a charge or error in the charge."

The court further stated that the accused in this case was never confronted with the material circumstance that was brought to light against them in the evidence that the dead died as a result of injuries sustained in the attack they carried out.

"Under Section 313 CrPC, questioning an accused is not merely a formality. According to Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the accused must be informed of the circumstances that appear in the evidence against him so that he can provide an explanation. After being questioned in accordance with Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, an accused person has the right to decide whether to examine defence witnesses and provide additional evidence. The accused will not be able to explain the crucial circumstances that appear against him in the evidence that is intended to support his conviction if those facts are not communicated to him "The bench declared.

The court thus found that by reason of omission to frame a proper charge in terms of Section 213 of CrPC, and by reason of not putting important circumstances appearing in the evidence in the statement under Section 313 caused serious prejudice to the accused. The court then proceeded to allow the appeal and acquit the accused.

Kalicharan vs State of Uttar Pradesh 

Latest Legal News