Hi All,
In my case the magistrate put entire chief of all prosecution evidence as part of the questions asked U/s 313 of CrPC whereas none of the allegations present in the charge framed U/s 240 of CrPC are part of the evidence of Prosecution Witnesses ....
Means the prosecution witnesses came with completely (100%) new story to that of the charge framed against the accused U/s 240 of CrPC....
Does such kind of questions maintainable considerign the below:
1. judgment in case of R.Palanisamy vs State By Inspector Of Police, passed on 23 April, 2013 in which the Hon’ble Madras High Court held as below:
62.But such examination must be with reference to incriminating, in-culpatory statement, details and circumstances in the prosecution evidence available as against the accused. So, when no incriminating details or circumstance, information implicating the accused is available in the prosecution evidence, there is no occasion for the court to examine the accused under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. Factual aspects of the case unaccompanied by any incriminating aspects or uncontraverted matters need not be put to the accused under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C.
63.But, in many judgments of the learned Sessions Judges, as in the presence case, we have come across entire evidence in combined, complex forms not containing any incriminating information being put to the accused under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C., completely ignoring the ambit, purport and scope of examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.”
3. judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2100, in which the Hon’ble Court held as below:
“…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.”
2. judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Dharnidhar v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2010) 7 SCC 759, in which the Hon’ble Court held as below:
“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.”
