313 statement
Ponnappa
(Querist) 29 March 2013
This query is : Resolved
Dear Experts,
1) Can a Judge do 313 statement individually or should it be done in presence of all the accused?
2)In the 313 statement can the judge ask about the cross other than the chief deposition?
3) Can the Judge ask the accused any question in which the accused is not connected to?
Looking forward to your suggestions
V R SHROFF
(Expert) 29 March 2013
u r Dr.
So your Query is academic.
R.K Nanda
(Expert) 29 March 2013
academic query.
Ponnappa
(Querist) 29 March 2013
Dear Experts,
This is not an academic approach. Recently a presiding officer did this. I wanted to know from you experts what is the position of law here. Your reply will help.
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g
(Expert) 29 March 2013
May be you have faced this music but most of the time defense advocates just do not take proper care for preparing the accused for statement u/s 313 and it can spoil the whole case.
Court has right to raise questions and accused can just keep quite instead of trying to answer and getting trapped.
Ponnappa
(Querist) 29 March 2013
My dear learned colleague Advocate defense request you to kindly read my query. Your response is off tangent. This does not help. I would highly appreciate if you could address the issue.
Dr V. Nageswara Rao
(Expert) 30 March 2013
1. S. 313, like S. 311 of Cr PC and S. 165 of Evidence Act,confers extraordinary powers on the Court for eliciting the truth and for doing justice in the case.
2. The sections do not even require that oath must be administered and hence he is not technically a witness, though it is a practice to call s. 311 as calling "Court witness".
3. The sections do not mandate that the other parties must be given an opportunity to cross examine.
4. The Court can put questions to a particular accused in the absence of the other accused, if any.
5. There is no question of cross exam under S. 313 as the accused is asked questions before he opens his defence.
6 See how many times the word "any" occurs in S. 165 of IE Act.Court can put any question relevant or irrelevant under S. 165.So also under S. 313.
7. Under S. 313 the Court can only "take into consideration" the replies of the accused for that trial.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 30 March 2013
I am in entire agreement with views of Dr V. Nageswara Rao .
Ponnappa
(Querist) 30 March 2013
Many thanks Dr V. Nageshwara Rao, for addressing the issue.
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g
(Expert) 30 March 2013
These are technical definitions and what about accused but even many defense legal persons are not aware.
For example the complainant is not able to properly prove the notice but its benefit is not taken by properly contradicting in cross. So the court asks the accused whether notice was SENT may be not received and unwittingly the accused says YES and the whole base of defense is lost.
Similarly in cheque cases there is lot of hype in legal media about SECURITY cheques. But defense due to lack of proper planning did not bring this fact on record. So when court asks the accused whether the complaint cheque was given and in most cases the reply is that the cheque was given but it was security cheque. And on this one reply whole the defense is lost.
Since in one yes the accused has admitted that he/she had given the complaint cheque and it is bounced. So complainant need not prove all these facts.And on the other hand by clever cross or evidence nothing is brought on record that the complaint cheque was not for any legal liability.
We particularly request the defense advocates to read word by word various SC and HC citations on SECURITY cheques. It has been again and again in vast detail courts have stated that mere statement of accused has no meaning unless it is corroborated by other evidence.
So due importance should be given to the statement of accused u/s 313 in criminal cases.
adv. rajeev ( rajoo )
(Expert) 31 March 2013
313 statement has to be recorded before all the accused independently.
