Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court Inquiry Commission Report Cannot Be Used For Disciplinary Action If Statutory Right To Cross-Examine Denied: Gauhati High Court Use Of Trademark On Website Accessible In India Constitutes Domestic Use, Geo-Blocking Mandatory For Territorial Restrictions: Delhi High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction To Interfere With DRT Proceedings Is Absolutely Barred Even For Third Parties: Madras High Court Adding a Prefix Can’t Erase Deceptive Similarity – Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘ARUN’ from Trademark ‘AiC ARUN’ Cannot Resile From Mediated Settlement After Taking Benefits: Supreme Court Quashes Wife's DV Case, Grants Divorce Absolute Indemnity Obligation Triggers Immediately Upon Court-Directed Deposit, Not On Final Appeal: Supreme Court Magistrate Directing Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC Only Requires Prima Facie Satisfaction Of Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Cancellation Of Sale Deed Under Specific Relief Act Not A Pre-Condition To Initiate Criminal Case For Forgery: Supreme Court Amalgamated Company Cannot Claim Set-Off Of Predecessor's Losses Under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act Without Specific Statutory Provision: Supreme Court Overlapping Split Chargesheets May Raise Double Jeopardy Concerns, Supreme Court Notes While Granting Bail To Former Jharkhand Minister Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convicted Ex-Jharkhand Minister Facing Overlapping Prosecutions From Split Chargesheets Electricity Act Appellate Authority Is A Quasi-Judicial Body Subject To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Birth Across Certificates Doesn't Amount To Fraud If No Undue Advantage Is Derived: Allahabad High Court Interest Earned On Funds Temporarily Parked Pending Project Deployment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income From Other Sources': Delhi High Court Reference Court Cannot Set Aside Collector's Award Or Remand Matter For Fresh Determination: Allahabad High Court Administrative Transfer Causing Revenue Loss Defies Court Process: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Ferry Ghat Handover Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka 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