Silence On Incriminating Circumstance Can Strengthen Prosecution Case: Gauhati High Court On Section 313 CrPC

“Accused Cannot Remain Selectively Silent When Confronted With Bloodstained Hands”, In a significant ruling on the evidentiary value of statements made under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Gauhati High Court held that an accused’s failure to explain an incriminating circumstance put to him during examination under Section 313 CrPC may be treated as an additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence.

The Division Bench of Justice Nelson Sailo and Justice Anjan Moni Kalita observed that although a statement under Section 313 CrPC cannot by itself form the sole basis of conviction, the Court is entitled to rely on those portions which support the prosecution case when read along with other evidence on record.

The Court ultimately dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellant for murder under Section 302 IPC.

Background of the Case

The prosecution case related to the murder of Rakesh Beyong on 18 February 2017 at Khola Camp, Bhalukpong in Arunachal Pradesh.

Evidence revealed that the deceased and the accused spent the day together drinking alcohol at a picnic at Atobong. During the gathering, the deceased humiliated and assaulted the accused, leading to a heated quarrel between them.

Later in the evening, the deceased was found lying on the road with multiple stab injuries near a residential area. He was rushed to the hospital but died due to hemorrhagic shock caused by multiple stab wounds inflicted by a sharp weapon.

Following investigation, the accused Sagar Sobar was charge-sheeted under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, and the Sessions Court convicted him for murder. The conviction was challenged before the Gauhati High Court.

Statement Under Section 313 CrPC And Its Evidentiary Value

During the trial, a crucial circumstance emerged from the testimony of PW-8, Narayan Sharma, a shopkeeper who stated that the accused visited his shop shortly after the incident and had blood on his right hand while purchasing a cigarette and biscuit.

When the accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC, he admitted visiting the shop, but he gave a different time for the visit and refused to comment on the observation of blood on his hand.

The High Court noted that the accused answered several other questions in detail, yet chose to remain silent on this specific incriminating circumstance.

The Court held:

“Although the accused admitted visiting the shop of PW-8, he chose not to offer any explanation regarding the blood seen on his hand. Such selective silence in the face of a specific incriminating question constitutes a relevant circumstance.”

The Court emphasized that while an accused has the right to remain silent, failure to explain a material circumstance appearing against him may allow the Court to draw an adverse inference, especially when other evidence already points toward guilt.

Law On Use Of Section 313 Statements

The Bench referred to the Supreme Court decision in Sanatan Naskar v. State of West Bengal, which clarified the scope of Section 313 CrPC.

The Court reiterated that the purpose of this provision is to create a direct dialogue between the Court and the accused, enabling him to explain any incriminating evidence appearing in the prosecution case.

However, the Court also noted an important limitation:

“The statement under Section 313 CrPC is not substantive evidence and conviction cannot rest solely on it. Nevertheless, the Court may rely upon those portions of the statement which support the prosecution case when read in conjunction with other evidence.”

Thus, the accused’s admission of visiting the shop and his failure to explain the bloodstained hands became an additional incriminating link supporting the prosecution case.

Circumstantial Evidence Supporting Conviction

Apart from the Section 313 statement, the Court relied on several other circumstances that formed a complete chain of evidence, including:

“motive arising from a quarrel and humiliation earlier in the day,”
“last-seen evidence placing the accused near the scene of the crime,”
“the accused being seen shortly after the incident with bloodstained hands,”
“his absconding conduct after the murder,” and
“corroborative extra-judicial confession.”

The Court concluded that these circumstances collectively established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

The Gauhati High Court reaffirmed that an accused’s answers—or lack thereof—during examination under Section 313 CrPC can play a significant role in assessing the prosecution case.

The Court held that where an accused selectively avoids explaining a crucial incriminating circumstance, such silence can legitimately strengthen the chain of circumstantial evidence.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the criminal appeal and upheld the conviction and life sentence of the appellant under Section 302 IPC.

Date of Decision: 09 March 2026