Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya vs. State of Rajasthan, Criminal Appeal No. 931-932
of 2009, Decided on May 6, 2013
The
Hon’ble Supreme Court delved upon the law related to statement of accused under
section 313 of CrPC and held that:
“..the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that
statement under Section 313 CrPC. is recorded to meet the requirement of the
principles of natural justice as it requires that an accused may be given an
opportunity to furnish explanation of the incriminating material which had come
against him in the trial. However, his statement cannot be made a basis for
his conviction. His answers to the questions put to him under Section
313 CrPC cannot be used to fill up the gaps left by the prosecution witnesses
in their depositions. Thus, the statement of the accused is not a
substantive piece of evidence and therefore, it can be used only for
appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution, though it cannot be a
substitute for the evidence of the prosecution. In case the prosecution’s
evidence is not found sufficient to sustain conviction of the accused, the inculpatory
part of his statement cannot be made the sole basis of his conviction. The statement
under Section 313 CrPC. is not recorded after administering oath to the accused.
Therefore, it cannot be treated as an evidence within the meaning of Section 3 of the Evidence Act, though the accused has a right if he chooses to
be a witness, and once he makes that option, he can be administered oath and
examined as a witness in defence as required under Section 315 CrPC. An
adverse inference can be taken against the accused only and only if the
incriminating material stood fully established and the accused is not able to
furnish any explanation for the same. However, the accused has a right to
remain silent, as he cannot be forced to become witness against himself.
[Para 36]
"In a criminal trial, the purpose of examining
the accused person under Section 313 Cr.P.C., is to meet the requirement of the
principles of natural justice i.e. audi alterum partem. This means that the
accused may be asked to furnish some explanation as regards the incriminating
circumstances associated with him, and the court must take note of such
explanation. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the same is essential to
decide whether or not the chain of circumstances is complete. No matter how
weak the evidence of the prosecution may be, it is the duty of the court to
examine the accused, and to seek his explanation as regards the incriminating
material that has surfaced against him. The circumstances which are not put to
the accused in his examination under Section 313 CrPC., cannot be used against
him and have to be excluded from consideration.”
In
this respect the Court also noted following case laws:
Munish Mubar v. State of Haryana, AIR 2013 SC 912, the Court,
while dealing with the issue of the examination of the accused under Section313 CrPC. held, that the accused has a duty to furnish an explanation in his
statement under Section 313 CrPC. As regards any incriminating material that
has been produced against him. Such a view was taken in light of the fact that
there existed evidence to show that the accused had parked his car at the Delhi
Airport, and that the same had remained there for several hours on the date of
commission of the crime in question. Thus, in light of the fact that such a
fact had been established, and that such circumstances also simultaneously
existed, the accused was expected to explain the reason for which he had gone
to the airport, and why the car had remained parked there for several hours.
Ramnaresh & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2012 SC
1357, the Court had taken the view that if an accused is given the freedom to
remain silent during the investigation, as well as before the Court, then the
accused may choose to maintain silence or even remain in complete denial, even
at the time when his statement under Section 313 CrPC. is being recorded.
However, in such an event, the Court would be entitled to draw an inference, including
such adverse inference against the accused, as may be permissible in accordance
with law.
Brajendrasingh v. State of M.P., AIR 2012 SC 1552, the Court
held, that it is equally true that a statement under Section 313 CrPC.,
simpliciter cannot normally be made the basis for convicting the accused. But
where the statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC. is in line with the
case of the prosecution, then the heavy onus of providing adequate proof on the
prosecution, that is placed is to some extent, reduced.
State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2100, this Court observed as under:
State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2100, this Court observed as under:
“…if there is no evidence or circumstance appearing in the
prosecution evidence implicating the accused with the commission of the crime
with which he is charged, there is nothing for the accused to explain and hence
his examination under Section 313 of the Code would be wholly unnecessary and
improper. In such a situation the accused cannot be questioned and his answers cannot
be used to supply the gaps left by witnesses in their evidence.”
Mohan Singh v. Prem Singh & Anr., AIR 2002 SC 3582, this
Court held:
“The statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC is not a
substantive piece of evidence. It can be used for appreciating evidence led by
the prosecution to accept or reject it. It is, however, not a substitute for
the evidence of the prosecution. If the exculpatory part of his statement is
found to be false and the evidence led by the prosecution is reliable, the
inculpatory part of his statement can be taken aid of to lend assurance to the evidence
of the prosecution. If the prosecution evidence does not inspire confidence to
sustain the conviction of the accused, the inculpatory part of his statement
under Section 313 CrPC cannot be made the sole basis of his conviction.”
Dehal Singh v. State of H.P., AIR 2010 SC 3594, this Court observed:
“Statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
is taken into consideration to appreciate the truthfulness or otherwise of the
case of the prosecution and it is not an evidence. Statement of an accused
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is recorded without
administering oath and, therefore, the said statement cannot be treated as
evidence within the meaning of Section 3 of the Evidence Act. The appellants have
not chosen to examine any other witness to support this plea and in case none
was available they were free to examine themselves in terms of Section 315 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure which, inter- alia, provides that a person
accused of an offence is a competent witness of the defence and may give
evidence on oath in disproof of the charges. There is reason not to treat the statement
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as evidence as the accused
cannot be cross-examined with reference to those statements. However, when an
accused appears as a witness in defence to disprove the charge, his version can
be tested by his cross-examination.”
State of M.P. v. Ramesh, (2011) 4 SCC 786, this Court held as
under:
“The statement of the accused made under Section 313 CrPC can
be taken into consideration to appreciate the truthfulness or otherwise of the
prosecution case. However, as such a statement is not recorded after administration
of oath and the accused cannot be crossexamined. his statement so recorded
under Section 313 CrPC cannot be treated to be evidence within the meaning of
Section 3 of the Evidence Act. 1872. Section 315 CrPC enables an accused to
give evidence on his own behalf to disprove the charges made against him. However,
for such a course, the accused has to offer in writing to give his evidence in
defence. Thus, the accused becomes ready to enter into the witness box, to take
oath and to be cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution and/or of the
accomplice, if it is so required.”
Rafiq Ahmed @ Rafi v. State of U.P., AIR 2011 SC 3114, this
Court observed as under:
“It is true that the statement under Section 313 CrPC cannot
be the sole basis for conviction of the accused but certainly it can be a
relevant consideration for the courts to examine, particularly when the
prosecution has otherwise been able to establish the chain of events….”
Dharnidhar v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2010) 7 SCC 759, this
Court held:
“The proper methodology to be adopted by the Court while
recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC is to invite the
attention of the accused to the circumstances and substantial evidence in
relation to the offence, for which he has been charged and invite his
explanation. In other words, it provides an opportunity to an accused to state
before the court as to what is the truth and what is his defence, in accordance
with law. It was for the accused to avail that opportunity and if he fails to
do so then it is for the court to examine the case of the prosecution on its
evidence with reference to the statement made by the accused under Section 313 CrPC.”
Ramnaresh & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2012 SC
1357, this Court held as under:
“It is a settled principle of law that the obligation to put
material evidence to the accused under Section 313 CrPC is upon the court. One
of the main objects of recording of a statement under this provision of CrPC is
to give an opportunity to the accused to explain the circumstances appearing
against him as well as to put forward his defence, if the accused so desires.
But once he does not avail this opportunity, then consequences in law must
follow. Where the accused takes benefit of this opportunity, then his statement
made under Section 313 CrPC, insofar as it supports the case of the
prosecution, can be used against him for rendering conviction. Even under the
latter, he faces the consequences in law.”