Accused as witness
alleged
(Querist) 18 November 2011
This query is : Resolved
Can an accused be called as a witness at pre summoning stage ?
Rajeev Kumar
(Expert) 18 November 2011
No an accused cann't be called as a witness at any stage
Kiran Kumar
(Expert) 18 November 2011
apply a bit of common sense here....how can an accused be a witness to case where he is yet to be summoned.
Whether an accused will depose against himself?
Kiran Kumar
(Expert) 18 November 2011
but I disagree with Rajeev's statement that accused can not be a witness at any stage.
there is a provision in Cr.P.C where an accused can be a witness...but certainly not at pre summoning stage...
Rajeev Kumar
(Expert) 18 November 2011
Under which section of the cr.pc the provision is that an accused can be a witness lies sir. Kindly inform me
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 19 November 2011
:-) agreed with experts.
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
Kiran Kumar
(Expert) 19 November 2011
Read Section 315 of Cr.P.C
315. Accused person to be competent witness. (1) Any person
accused of an offence before a Criminal Court shall be a competent
witness for the defence and may give evidence on oath in disproof of
the charges made against him or any person charged together with him
at the same trial:
Provided that-
(a) he shall not be called as a witness except on his own
request in writing;
(b) his failure to give evidence shall not be made the
subject of any comment by any of the parties or the Court or
give rise to any presumption against himself or any person
charged together with him at the same trial.
(2) Any person against whom proceedings are instituted in any
Criminal Court under section 98, or section 107, or section 108, or
section 109, or section 110, or under Chapter IX or under Part B, Part
C or Part D of Chapter X, may offer himself as a witness in such
proceedings:
Provided that in proceedings under section 108, section 109 or
section 110, the failure of such person to give evidence shall not be
made the subject or any comment by any of the parties or the Court or
give rise to any presumption against him or any other person proceeded
against together with him at the same inquiry.
read it carefully and apply it carefully.
Guest
(Expert) 19 November 2011
I agree with Shri Kiran Kumar.
N.K.Assumi
(Expert) 19 November 2011
Well explained by Kiran.
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 19 November 2011
Accused can be a witness on his own, but accused can not be called / summoned as a witness by any party.
Only court can summon the accused u/s 313 cr.p.c.
Dr V. Nageswara Rao
(Expert) 19 November 2011
1. An accused is a competent witness for himself.
2. He cannot be summoned as a witness by prosecution during trial.
3. An accused can become prosecution witness if he turns an approver.
4. Under Ss. 160/161 CrPC, a police officer can call any person as a "witness" even at pre-summoning stage and examine him and record his statement.
5. However, any statement made by such "witnesses" before the police during investigation cannot be used at the trial.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 19 November 2011
Let the provisions in Cr.P.C. be as they are but mind is still wandering about the worthiness of this query?????????
The Author alleged asked :
"Can an accused be called as a witness at pre summoning stage ?"
i emphasize"PRE SUMMONING STAGE"
But he does not tell who is calling him, the complainant or Magistrate and how ANY OF THESE TWO can call any person who is just only "proposed to be an accused" as complainant has not even bring prima facie evidence to call him an accuse??
M/s. Y-not legal services
(Expert) 19 November 2011
Yes. Nice answer given by mr.kiran. Accuse can be as witness for defence his case.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 19 November 2011
I agree to this part of the answer of Mr. Kiran "apply a bit of common sense here....how can an accused be a witness to case where he is yet to be summoned."
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g
(Expert) 19 November 2011
Making accused a witness will be HARAKARI since other party will have right to cross and all the beans will be open against the accused.
dev kapoor
(Expert) 19 November 2011
Hi all,
Sh.Kiran has appropriately advised.I agree with whatever has said by Dr.V Nageswara Rao & Sh.Prabhakar Singh.They have dilated the issue & clarfied the ambiguity.But Mr.Shonee Kapoor with whom you "agree" is not known.You write "I agree with experts",which one ?
Hv a nice day.
Sankaranarayanan
(Expert) 19 November 2011
mr kiran explained more then the expectation of owner of query.
J K Agrawal
(Expert) 20 November 2011
Dear Sirs
This is a time to go through s 313 of Cr. P. C.
Generally we take it very lightly but it says that an accused can be summoned at any time by the Court.
It is different that no oath can be administered to him and nor he is bound to answer the questions of the Court.
Guest
(Expert) 20 November 2011
@ J k Agrawal,
Agrawal ji, the question of the querist is about "pre summoning stage." You may, therefore, like to clarify the position with reference to your reply u/s 313 CrPC please.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 20 November 2011
I do not do and have never been doing criminal cases as i never liked it to do.
But here it some times become interesting to participate in.
My notion so far have been that on complaint filed lawyers go far recording of evidence under section 200 then 202,where after they convince magistrate summoning and then he summons.
This usual procedure of hear say in my mind
had a suggestion for me that an accuse can not be called for any interrogation by magistrate before magistrate prima facie finds him an accuse BUT position is really different as pointed out by Mr.J.K.Agrawal.
As he referred s.313 i went through it to read.It lays:
(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;
TO ME IT DOES MAKES A DIFFERENCE.I HAD A FALSE NOTION AND WAS NOT AWARE OF CORRECT LEGAL POSITION.THE PHRASE"at any stage" WITH RELATION TO PHRASE"In every inquiry"
DOES CONVEY THE MEANING Mr.J.K. Agrawal HAS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT.
Guest
(Expert) 20 November 2011
@ Prabhakar ji,
That way, the question of the querist is incomplete, as he has not mentioned, who desired to call the accused, as a witness and for what purpose.
Moreover, section 313 does not relate to examinining or cross-examining of the accused, AS A WITNESS. Further to it, as per sub sec.(1)(a), ONLY court MAY (not compulsorily) call the accused just to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence, BUT NOT as a witness.
The accused can be put only to general examination on the case even AFTER all the prosecution witnesses have been examined (NOT BEFORE THAT), as pointed out in sub-sec.(1)(b). The accused can even refuse to answer questions even in general examination by the court, as per sub-section (3) of section 313.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 20 November 2011
@Dhingra Ji !
I do not like to argue any thing just for a showoff solace.
To me it is simple.I said a very simple thing that till i did not read s.313Cr,P.C.; i on the ground of my hear say knowledge always labored in to a mistake of law that there could only be a circumstance stated in s.313(1)(b)when a magistrate can call an accused.
But on reading section 313(1)(a) just to day i found myself enlightened that it could also be a stage when a magistrate can call an accused.And since my this knowledge came on pointing out thingsbyMr.J.K.Agrawal
I thanked him in my own way.
I am not worried how you understand because
showing off without any understanding as well as deviation from the track is your business i have always noticed.Unless you do that your zeal and digestion never gets satisfied.
Interpretation of law is not everybody business although its'cramming may be for many one like you.
Guest
(Expert) 20 November 2011
@ Prabhakar ji,
Interpretation depends upon person to person. You can think yourself as correct, while I can think my interpretation to be correct.
But one thing I have noticed, instead of trying to learn from other's point or to convince him, even on acdemic discussion, you have always tried to justify yourself NOT on legal point, BUT MERELY BY CASTING ASPERSIONS ON OTHERS, more particularly where I tried to discuss anything, as you take everything personal or take that as an insult, if some one tries to ask a clarifiction on your point. On the other hand, I always try to learn from each others.
Please don't mind, I have noticed, you don't even have control on your language and burst with anger through your writing when you don't find any appropriate answer to one's point, as can be seen from the following text of your answer:
"showing off without any understanding as well as deviation from the track is your business i have always noticed.Unless you do that your zeal and digestion never gets satisfied. Interpretation of law is not everybody business although its'cramming may be for many one like you."
You may be perfect in some or many matters, but not in all. I don't also consider myself as perfect. BUT, on this particular point, to be frank, I don't consider you to be correct. While I asked viewpoint of Shri Agrawal, you tried to enter in to fray, yourself, simply because some the clarificatory post was made by me. I am sure you would not have posted your views had I not placed my viewpoints. On the other hand the views of Shri Agrawal are yet awaited, but you aggravated the issue about nothing. You may better re-read the section 313 ten time with particular reference to accused as witness and pre-summoning by anyone or the judge.
For your information, during my whole life I NEVER RESORTED TO CRAMMING IN ANY OF MY SEVERAL EXAMINATIONS, AS YOU HAVE ASSUMED WITHOUT KNOWING EVEN SLIGHLY ABOUT MY BACKGROUND, WHAT TO SAY FOR ANSWERING MERELY A SMALL POINT OF ISSUE.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 20 November 2011
@Dhingra Ji!
You are just GREAT GREAT N GREAT N GREAT N GREAT .
Arun Kumar Bhagat
(Expert) 02 December 2011
See Article 20(3) of Indian Constitution. An accused can not be a witness against himself.
(Expert) 19 November 2011
