Recording of statements under

Section 313.
The principle behind recording of statement under
section 313 is that the accused must be given an
opportunity to explain the material against him. It is a
rule of fair play and natural justice.
The provision is mainly intended to benefit the
accused and as its corollary to benefit the court in
reaching the final conclusion. At the same time it
should be borne in mind that the provision is not
intended to nail him to any position, but to comply
with the most salutary principle of natural justice
enshrined in the maxim "audi alteram partem".
Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code uses the
expression "to explain any circumstances appearing
in the evidence". The word "evidence", employed in
this section is not defined in the Code of Criminal
Procedure. However, it is defined in section 3 of the
Evidence Act which means and includes all
"statements" which the Court permits or requires to
be made before it by witness, in relation to matters of
Section 313 provides for two stages when the
statement of the accused can be recorded:
1) The court may at any stage of the trial,
2) The court shall after the witnesses of the
prosecution have been examined.
The word "may" in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1)
in Section 313 of the Code indicates that even
if the court does not put any question under
that clause the accused cannot raise any
grievance about it.
However, if the court fails to put the needed
question under Clause (b) of the Sub-section it
would result in a handicap to the accused and
he can legitimately claim that no evidence,
without affording him the opportunity to
explain, can be used against him.
It is not a sufficient to generally ask the accused
that, "having heard the prosecution evidence
what he has to say about it". The accused must
be questioned separately about each material
circumstance which is intended to be used
against him. The whole object of the section is
to afford the accused a fair and proper
opportunity of explaining circumstances which
appear against him. The questions put to him
must be fair and must be couched in a manner
which even an ignorant or illiterate person may
be able to appreciate and understand.
(Ajmer Singh v. State of Punjab, 1953 CriLJ 521)
The word generally in section 313(1)(b)
does not limit the nature of the
questioning to one or more questions of
a general nature relating to the case,
but it means that the question should
relate to the whole case generally and
should also be limited to any particular
part or parts of it.
The question must be framed in such a
way as to enable the accused to know
what he is to explain, what are the
circumstances which are against him
and what are the circumstances to
which an explanation is needed.
WHETHER STATEMENT
RECORDED UNDER
SECTION 313 CAN FORM
A SOLE BASIS FOR
CONVICTION?
 Since no oath is administered to the
accused, the statements made by the
accused will not be evidence stricto
sensu. That is why sub-section (3) says
that the accused shall not render himself
liable to punishment if he gives false
answers.
Then comes sub-section (4) which says
that 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. Therefore, though not strictly
evidence, sub-section (4) permits that it
Whether it can form a sole basis for conviction was
answered by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of
Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju v. State of Rajasthan, 2013 (82)
ACC 431.
It was held that a statement undersection 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 313CrPCcannot 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 evidenceand therefore,it can be used only for
appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution,
thoughit cannot be a substitute for the evidence of the
prosecution. In case the prosecutions evidence is not
found sufficient to sustain conviction of the accused, the
inculpatory part of his statement cannot be made the
Section 313 (5) provides that the court may permit the
accused to file written statement as sufficient
compliance of the section.
The question whether it was indispensably mandatory
that the accused himself should be questioned or
whether the court could allow the advocate to answer
such questions on behalf of the accused at least in
some exigent conditions was discussed by the Honble
Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Punjab
v. Hari Singh, AIR 2009 SC 1966.
The following were the observations:
An accused (who is already exempted from personally
appearing in the Court) makes an application to the
court praying that he may be allowed to answer the
questions without making his physical presence in
court on account of justifying exigency the court can
pass appropriate orders thereon, provided such
A. A narration of facts to satisfy the court of his real
difficulties to be physically present in court for
giving such answers,
B. An assurance that no prejudice would be caused to
him, in any manner, by dispensing with his personal
presence during such questioning,
C. An undertaking that he would not raise any
grievance on that score at any stage of the case.
If the court is satisfied of the genuineness of the
statements made by the accused in the said
application and affidavit it is open to the court to
supply the questionnaire to his advocate (containing
the questions which the court might put to him
under Section 313 of the Code) and fix the time
within which the same has to be returned duly
answered by the accused together with a properly
authenticated affidavit that those answers were
The accused should affix his signature on all
the sheets of the answered questionnaire.
However, if he does not wish to give any answer
to any of the questions he is free to indicate that
fact at the appropriate place in the questionnaire
[as a matter of precaution the Court may keep
photocopy or carbon copy of the questionnaire
before it is supplied to the accused for answers].
If the accused fails to return the questionnaire
duly answered as aforesaid within the time or
extended time granted by the court, he shall
forfeit his right to seek personal exemption from
court during such questioning.
If the evidence brought on record is sufficient to bring
home guilt of the accused, the omission to put any
particular circumstances to the accused under section
313, does not, ipso facto, vitiate the proceedings
unless any prejudice caused to the accused is
established by him.
If Appellate Court or revisional Court comes across
that the trial Court had not put any question to an
accused even if it is of a vital nature, such omission
alone should not result in setting aside the conviction
and sentence as an inevitable consequence. Effort
should be made to undo or correct the lapse. If it is
not possible to correct it by any means the Court
should then consider the impact of the lapse on the
overall aspect of the case. After keeping that
particular item of evidence aside, if the remaining
evidence is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the
accused, the lapse does not matter much, and can be
sidelined justifiably. But if the lapse is so vital as
would affect the entire case, the appellate or
TO SUM UP
1.Section 313 CrPC , is the fundamental principle of
fairness because section 313 Cr.P.C.prescribes a
procedural safeguard for an accused, giving him an
opportunityto explain the facts and circumstances
appearing against him in theevidence and this
opportunity is valuable from the standpoint of
theaccused.
2.The object of Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. is to bring
thesubstance of accusation to the accused to enable
him to explaineach and every circumstances
appearing in the evidence against him.
Theprovisions of this section are mandatory
3.The provision is mainly intended tobenefit the
accused and as its corollary to benefit the court in
reachingthe final conclusion.So far as Section 313
Cr.P.C. is concerned, undoubtedly, theattention of
the accused must specifically be brought to
4.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
examinationunderSection313of 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.
5.On the plain language of Section 313, it is evident that in a
summons case, when the personal appearance of the
accused has been dispensed with under Section 205 of the
Code, a discretion is vested in the Magistrate to dispense
with the rigour of personal examination of the accused
under Section 313 of the Code as well.
6.Dispensation with the personal examination of an accused
in terms of the said provision is within the trial court's
discretion, to be exercised keeping in view certain
parameters, enumerated therein and not as a matter of
8. Where there are more than one witnesses who have
deposed as to the same fact, it is not necessary that
statement of each witness must be put the accused
separately. It is open for the court to club the statements
and put only one question.
9. The accused has to be informed that the inclupatory
statements made by him may be taken into consideration
in the trial. The court is under an obligation to put the
accused to notice as aforesaid before recording his
statement. If the accused is not given such warning or
notice, in a given case, serious prejudice may be caused to
the accused (Laxman alias Laxmayya Gangaram Zinna v.
State of Maharashtra, 2012 BomCR(Cri) 1).
10.When the defence of the accused is of total denial, there
can be no prejudice caused to the accused for not being
put any particular question separately or clubbing 2 or 3
questions etc. So also, absence of Advocate for the
accused at the time of recording 313 statement of the
IN EVERY TRIAL, THE COURT IS REQUIRED TO DO
THE FOLLOWING: -
1)Giving the opportunity to accused to question the
admissibility of the evidence of prosecution witness.
2)Giving the opportunity to accused to impeach the
credit of any of the prosecution witnesses under
section 155 of the Indian Evidence Act or move
application under S.340 CrPC for perjury.
3)Clearly identify the admissible and inadmissible
evidence.
4)Clearly identify the facts proved or not proved by
the prosecution.
5) Clearly assess if there is any presumption to be
granted to the prosecution against the accused.
6)Identify and record the circumstances and
evidence appearing against the accused.
WHAT ACTUALLY
HAPPENS
1) Admissibility of the evidence is stalled till the
time of final judgment.
2) Extreme reluctance of the trial courts or even
of counsels to get into S.340 CrPC.
3) Low awareness about Section 155 of the
Indian Evidence Act on the defense side, and
thus falsehood gets propagated.
4) Absolutely mechanized way of questioning.
5) Composite questions put to the accused at
the stage of recording statement under
section 313 with the result that the entire
exercise is rendered meaningless.
 CONCLUSION
The recording of statement under section 313 is not a
mere empty formality. The trial court can only
question the accused on proven circumstances or on
proven evidence. If the admissibility of the evidence
is not decided then there is a big danger that what
ever being asked to the accused could be based on
inadmissible evidence or based on the evidence of a
witness who may be punished under perjury.
The CrPC mandates and binds the trial court to look
into the prosecution case in totality The
circumstances which are not put to the accused in his
examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., cannot be
used against him and have to be excluded from
consideration.
The attention of the accused is required to be to
every inculpatory material so as to enable him to