Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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