Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

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