The Supreme Court, in a case of Indrakunwar
v. The State of Chhattisgarh, 2023, while acquitting a woman accused of killing her
own child and was convicted for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, also
decided the question of what may be required of the convict in her statement
under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C).
Citing extensive thread of
precedents, the Top Court penned down the following principles.
1.
The object, evident from the Section itself,
is to enable the accused to themselves explain any circumstances appearing in
the evidence against them.
2.
The intent is to establish a dialogue between
the Court and the accused. This process benefits the accused and aids the Court
in arriving at the final verdict.
3.
The process enshrined is not a matter of
procedural formality but is based on the cardinal principle of natural justice,
i.e.,audi alterum partem.
4.
The ultimate test when concerned with the
compliance of the Section is to enquire and ensure whether the accused got the
opportunity to say his piece.
5.
In such a statement, the accused may or may
not admit involvement or any incriminating circumstance or may even offer an
alternative version of events or interpretation. The accused may not be put to
prejudice by any omission or inadequate questioning.
6.
The right to remain silent or any answer to a
question which may be false shall not be used to his detriment, being the sole
reason.
7.
This statement cannot form the sole basis of
conviction and is neither a substantive nor a substitute piece of evidence. It
does not discharge but reduces the prosecution’s burden of leading evidence to
prove its case. They are to be used to examine the veracity of the
prosecution’s case.
8.
This statement is to be read as a whole. One
part cannot be read in isolation.
9.
Such a statement, as not on oath, does not
qualify as a piece of evidence under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872; however, the inculpatory aspect as may be borne from the statement may be
used to lend credence to the case of the prosecution.
10.
The circumstances not put to the accused while
rendering his statement under the Section are to be excluded from consideration
as no opportunity has been afforded to him to explain them.
11.
The Court is obligated to put, in the form of
questions, all incriminating circumstances to the accused so as to give him an
opportunity to articulate his defence. The defence so articulated must be
carefully scrutinized and considered.
12.
Non-compliance with the Section may cause
prejudice to the accused and may impede the process of arriving at a fair
decision.
It may be noted that, in the
instant case, the case of the prosecution was that the convict (appellant) had
relations with a co-villager, namely, Baiga Gond, as a result of which she
conceived a child. She, upon giving birth, allegedly killed this child and
threw the corpse into a dabri (small water body pond).
In the Section 313 CrPC
statement, the accused had admitted that she was pregnant. Since the accused
was living alone, the trial court made further inferences from her admission of
pregnancy and proceeded to hold her guilty of the murder of the child.
The Supreme Court took a
critical view of the approach taken by the trial court, which was affirmed by
the High Court.
In the context of Section
313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court said: “Although
there is a requirement by law to disclose the aspects required to adjudicate in
a criminal matter such duty cannot unreasonably and unwarrantedly step over the
fundamental right of privacy.”
Add a Comment