Electricity Act 2003 | Section 56(2) Does Not Preclude Licensee From Raising Supplementary Demand After Two Years; Only Restricts Right To Disconnect: Supreme Court Dissolution Of Partnership At Will | Outgoing Partner Entitled To Market Value Of Assets As On Date Of Distribution, Not Date Of Dissolution: Supreme Court SEBI | Release Of Escrow Under Buyback Regulations Does Not Preclude Independent Inquiry Into Fraud Under PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Promotion Based On Merit Does Not Wipe Out Past Adverse Records But Must Be Balanced In FR 56(j) Compulsory Retirement: Supreme Court Appellate Court Can Convict For Offence Even If Charge Not Framed By Trial Court Under Section 464 CrPC: Supreme Court Extradition | Sovereign Assurance Does Not Override Judicial Sentencing; Cannot Be Used To Artificially Accelerate Sentence Completion: Supreme Court Article 21 | State Has A Positive Duty To Protect Public Health By Implementing Front-Of-Package Labelling Regulations: Supreme Court Revenue Entries Are Not Documents Of Title, Cannot Replace Substantive Evidence In Property Disputes: Supreme Court Long Possession Without Hostile Animus Does Not Amount To Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Administrative Discretion Must Comply With Article 14; Subsequent Executive Decisions Cannot Retroactively Cure Failure Of Timely Performance: Supreme Court Municipal Corporation Cannot Unilaterally Downgrade Market Value Of Land Acquired For Road Widening To Deny TDR Certificates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Execution Of Agreement To Sell Does Not Automatically Terminate Existing Tenancy: Allahabad High Court Writ Jurisdiction Not Maintainable When Title To Property Is Under A Cloud And Subject Matter Of Disputed Facts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Amendment Of Plaint Seeking Impleadment Of Third Parties And Addition Of Time-Barred Claims In A Partition Suit Cannot Be Permitted: Bombay High Court Reassessment Order Does Not Result In Merger Of Original Assessment Order If Issues Are Distinct: Andhra Pradesh High Court GST Assessment Order Uploaded Only Under 'Additional Notices' Tab Without Separate Intimation Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Calcutta High Court 'Prolonged Inaction' Cannot Be Rewarded: Delhi High Court Upholds CESTAT Refusal To Condone 968-Day Delay In Filing Customs Appeal Probate No Longer Mandatory To Establish Rights Under A Will Following 2025 Amendment To Indian Succession Act: J&K High Court Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used To Introduce New Factual Foundations Or Reopen Concluded Arbitral Awards: Karnataka High Court High Court Cannot Invoke Article 227 To Strike Off Plaint When Statutory Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Is Available: Madras High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Arrest And Subsequent Remand: Orissa High Court Arbitrator Is The Sole Judge Of Quality And Quantity Of Evidence, Court Cannot Act As Court Of Appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 5 Limitation Act | Court Cannot Condone Delay In A Mechanical Manner Without Ascertaining Bona Fides Of The Applicant: Calcutta High Court High Court Cannot Quash FIR Under Section 482 CrPC By Conducting Mini-Trial On Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court Taxation Law | Mere Assertion Of Natural Justice Violation On Disputed Facts Won't Bypass Statutory Appeal: Delhi High Court

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