Crpc.313 in 498a case

Ram (Querist) 09 June 2020 This query is : Resolved
Dear Experts,
My wife filed 498A case in trial court with false allegations. The case is running for 5 years.
I am first accused (A1) and my mother is second accused (A2). I donot want to give CHIEF EXAMINATION so that i can avoid CROSS EXAMINATION by Prosecution Lawyer. But I will mark my evidence during cross examination of the PW1 (wife & others) to disprove the allegations fabricated against me.

My Questions:
===========
1) Will the JUDGE or the PROSECUTION ADVOCATE compel me and my mother to give CHIEF EXAMINATION u/s Crpc.313?

Thanks in Advance
Ram

Follow Query

Report Abuse

Quick Summary

This discussion clarifies the purpose of Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) in 498A cases. It explains that while an accused cannot be compelled to give a chief examination, the 313 examination is a crucial opportunity to present their version of events and counter false allegations. The advice stresses that anything said during this unsworn statement cannot be used to punish the accused directly but can corroborate prosecution evidence or lead to acquittal if convincing.

K Rajasekharan (Expert) 10 June 2020
The purpose of 313 examinations is not to add up evidence or proof against an accused, as many would believe.

It is for making the accused aware of on what incriminating circumstances he is going to be penalised so that he can put up his effective defence in the forthcoming part of the trial in which he has to defend his case.

The examination is done without taking oath. Nothing of whatsoever the accused says, even if he admits everything, could be used to punish him. That can be used only for corroborating the other prosecution evidence if that is there.

But the explanation he gives in the 313 examination, if it is convincing to the court, could be used to acquit him. The 313 examination is the only point where the accused ca make the court know his version of the incident if the charge put up against him is a cooked up or unconvincing one. It is a golden opportunity for the accused.

An article I wrote on this aspect is available at http://lawwatch.in/2020/03/14/313%20statement/index.html

Message likes : 1 times

Ram (Querist) 10 June 2020
dear mr.K. Rajasekharan sir, Thank you very much for your detailed explanation.

P. Venu (Expert) 10 June 2020
An accused cannot compelled to be a witness against himself. This is a Constitutional protection.

Article 20(1) in The Constitution Of India 1949
((1) No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the Act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.

(2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.

(3) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself

Message likes : 1 times

Raj Kumar Makkad (Expert) 10 June 2020
No is the sole reply to your query, however, its professional reasons are many apart from others taleady told to you.

Message likes : 1 times

Ram (Querist) 11 June 2020
Thank you sir Mr. P.Venu for your kind reply and
Thank you sir Mr. Raj Kumar Makkad for your kind reply