Is s. 313 (2) is discriminatory and unconstitutional?

sorry . plz read second sentence of question thus : "an accused is already protected under art. 20 (3) from giving evidence against himself."

Why oath is not administered is clear from S.s. (3).

"The accused shall not render himself liable to punishment by refusing to answer such questions, or by giving FALSE ANSWERES  to them"

In India If keenly observed substaintial sections of  criminal justice system along with its evidentiary valve  is accused oriented like presumption of innocence  Why can we think so much on the line of emerging trend of "Victimology"  protecting victims  I feel sec 313 is discriminatory and should be amended.  

On going thrugh some of the celebrated judgments of the Supreme Court on this matter, I am of the view that section 313 CrPc does in no way amounts to discrimination. In the case of "State of Madhya Bharat"  AIR 1953 SC 468: Bose J, observed at para 8 as follows:

                                           "Now the statements of an accused person recorded under section 208,209 and 342 CrPc, are among the most important matters to be considered at the trial. It has to be remembered in this country that an accused person is not allowed to enter the box and speak on oath in his own defence. This may operate for the protection of the accused in some cases but experience has shown that it can also be powerful and impressive weapon of defence in the hands of an innocent man. The statements of the accused recorded by the committing Magistrate and the session Judge are intended in India to take the place of what in Englnd and America he would be free to state in his own way in witness box. They have to be received in evidence and treated as evidence and be considered at the trial as per section 287 and 342.

                     This means they must be treated like any other piece of evidence coming from the mouth of a witness and matters in favour of the accused must be viewed with as much deference and given as much weight as matters which tell against him.Nay, more. Because of the presumption of innocence in his favour even when he is not ina position to prove the truth of his story, his version should be accepted if it is reasonable and accords with the probalities unless the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubts that it is false.