Section 313 CrPC: Power to examine the accused

Chapter XXIV

accused's explanation, court's power, Evidentiary Value, examination of accused, Fair trial, inquiry and trial procedure, Right Against Self-Incrimination, statement of accused

New Law Update (2024)

Section 355 BNSS

TRIAL COURT

Punishment

Procedural – Warrant / Summons Process

Cognizable?

Bailable?

Compoundable?

Bare Act Text

(1) In every inquiry or trial, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court—
(a) may at any stage, without previously warning the accused, put such questions to him as the Court considers necessary;
(b) shall, after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence, question him generally on the case:
Provided that in a summons-case where the Court has dispensed with the personal attendance of the accused, it may also dispense with his examination under clause (b).
(2) No oath shall be administered to the accused when he is examined under sub-section (1).
(3) The accused shall not render himself liable to punishment by refusing to answer such questions, or by giving false answers to them.
(4) The answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial, and put in evidence for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence which such answers may tend to show he had committed.

Important Sub-Sections Explained

Section 313(1)

This sub-section mandates the court to question the accused to explain incriminating circumstances against them. It includes both discretionary questions the court ‘may’ ask at any stage and mandatory questions the court ‘shall’ ask after the prosecution’s evidence, but before the defence begins.

Section 313(2) & (3)

These sub-sections safeguard the accused’s rights during examination. They state that no oath can be administered to the accused, and they cannot be punished for refusing to answer questions or for giving false answers, upholding the principle against self-incrimination.

Landmark Judgements

Basavaraj R. Patil v. State of Karnataka (2000):

The Supreme Court clarified that the statement made by an accused under Section 313 CrPC is not a substantive piece of evidence but can be used for appreciating the prosecution evidence. It cannot be the sole basis for conviction, nor can it fill gaps in the prosecution’s case.

Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju v. State of Rajasthan (2013):

The Supreme Court emphasized that the examination under Section 313 CrPC is not a mere formality but a substantive right of the accused to explain incriminating circumstances. Failure to put relevant questions regarding incriminating evidence appearing against the accused can be fatal to the prosecution’s case.

Chapter XXIV