Sec 313 and CrPC Amdt Act 2008

Sec-324, 447 I.P.C. Personal presence of accused whether necessary to answer question under 313- Held no- Accused can be permitted to answer through counsel without personally being present, on undertaking that answer so given shall be binding on him- or to forego his right to answer under 313- He can’t be compelled to appear personally to answer- -Shaji V/S State of kerla, decided on 26 apr 2005-A.C.C.-2005-Vol-52-Sum-21-Kerla H.C.-SC’s ruling.

Also find the SC's ruling in -Cr.L.J.-2000-page-4604.

Mr Arvind

Thanx  for the citation and updation.

But pls tell me why sub section 5 (reproduced below) was needed to be inserted when your citation is of 2005 and amendment act is of 2009

"(5) The Court may take help of Prosecutor and Defence Counsel in preparing relevant questions which are to be put to the accused and the Court may permit filing of written statement by the accused as sufficient compliance of this section.".

There must have been some compelling reasons pls update?

sanjeev

In my opnion new amendment ismore libral in this point. Now court may permit to answer in writing also . No where is mentioned that accused must be personally present at the time of filing this written statement. It means court may prepare question, which may be noted by accused or his counsel and the written statement may be filed on the next date also. It is to be noted that in this new provision no time is fixed it means accused may seek adjournment also for filing his written statement.

Thank you Sanjeev, for posting the query.

Prior to the introduction of S.313(5) it was mandatory for the court to put questions to the accused under S.313(3).

However after the introduction of sub section 5  if a view is still held that it is mandatory to put questions under sub section 3 then it will render sub section 5 redundant.

Therefore to harmonise both the section I feel that whenever an accused choose to put in a written statement under sub section 5 the court should treat it as sufficient compliance and should not proceed under sub section 3 as if it is mandatory.  However if the accused does not put in a written statement under sub section 5 then it is mandatory for the court to put questions under sub section 3.  If it is interpreted in this manner there would be harmony between both the sections.

In a case handled by me after the introduction of the new section the court rejected the written statement on the ground that the charges are serious against the accused and went on to put questions under sub section 3 and strangely recorded one word answers such as "true", "false" or "I dont know".

According to me as the charges were serious it was all the more important for the court to accept the written statement rather than recording one word answers especially when the section is intended in the interest of the accused.

Personally I feel trial court defense advocates should not assist the court in framing the questions under section 313.  If the court itself frames the question under section 313 the defence advocate will have an opportunity to know what the judge considers as the evidence incriminating against the accused which will give opportunity to the defence advocate to adress those issues at the time of defense evidence or at the time of the arguement.

However in a few of the lower court it is observed that the court clerk is unofficialy assigned the task of framing the questions as the Judge is burdened with other matters.  It is in this back ground I think the amendment has been introduced for taking the assistance of prosecution or defense advocate in framing the questions to reduce the burden on the Judge.

In fact in a matter handled by me a matter was adjourned for last 6 months only for the purpose of framing 313 questions. In this 6 months the matter was adjourned for almost 20 occassions. When as defense advocate I framed questions under 313(5) to assist the judge the judge got annoyed.  In that case written statement filed by accused was not taken on record but returned back to the accused stating that it contains "story".  I am sure that in this case also questions will be put under sub section 3 and answers will be recorded as "true or "false" as the court seems not to be interested in hearing the defense "story".

In my views and as per the experiences i came across, the procedure u/s 313 Cr.P.C. is mere a formal process for the trial courts, neither the trial court nor defence advocates take notice of framed questions under this section, many times it happens that these questions used to be prepared by steno of presiding officer in a summary manner and routine replies negativating as false used to be given by accused. Finally i dont think that this amendment will be benefficial towards ends of justice during trial and to faciliate court officers.  

Res Menon Ji

Thanx for very analytical answer.

It is true that court clerk are assigned the duties in rural areas courts.

My whole logic for posting the query was whether all the  defendents are required to be present in court on date of Sec 313 or simply written statement through cousel will do .

you shall be surprised that advocates in rural area are not aware of ss5 of Sec 313 and they and courts are following old system that all accused/defendents be present on date of hearing u/s313.

Pls explain further

sanjeev

Res Pankaj Ji

Very truly said. for court  the cases are routine matter but  litigants are going from here and there to attend the court and are surprised by the casul attitude.

sanjeev

My views on ss5 is that:

This section has been inserted to give opportunity to defendents to give in writing what they want to say since as pankaj ji said  questions are prepared in casual manner and answers are  given in yes/no/ do not know. and defendents can say better in written form with logical reasoning and ultimately while deciding the case written statements are referred not oral things wash out of memory very soon.

I am of view that this section has been inserted since putting questions and getting answers were serving no purpose.

sanjeev  

According to me it will take some time or decision of the superior court or some presiding officer who has the inclination to understand and take note of the amendment, after which the accused will really able to get the benefit of the amendment.

This kind of magistrates should be sent home.

All members

I request all members to further share/discuss their views since sec 313 (5) since implications are not clear and courts/defendents/litigants are not aware of this amendments.

After all for whose benefit ss5 has been instered in S313.

sanjeev

Sanjeev, would you kindly post that ss5 of section 313 of the CrPc in this forum? Thanks in advance.