Karnataka HC Issues Guidelines For Trial Courts On Examination Of Accused Under Section 313 CrPC
The Karnataka High Court guidelines on examination of accused under Section 313 CrPC, with relevant case laws,
Karnataka High Court Issues Guidelines For Trial Courts On Examination Of Accused Under Section 313 CrPC
1. Introduction to Section 313 CrPC
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) provides the right to the accused to be examined by the trial court after the prosecution has closed its evidence.
The object of this provision is to enable the accused to explain any circumstances appearing against him in the evidence.
It is a mandatory, substantive, and procedural safeguard meant to ensure the accused gets a fair chance to present his side before judgment.
It is not a part of the evidence, but the court must record the accused’s explanation, if any, in its judgment.
2. Why Guidelines by Karnataka High Court?
Trial courts often either ignore or mechanically proceed with Section 313 questioning.
Accused are sometimes not given a proper opportunity to answer vital points appearing in the prosecution evidence.
Courts have also recorded vague or perfunctory answers that do not reflect a true explanation.
The Karnataka High Court issued detailed guidelines to trial courts to maintain uniformity and fairness in the exercise of Section 313 CrPC.
3. Essence of Karnataka HC Guidelines
The guidelines emphasize the following points:
a. Court’s duty to explain to the accused the substance of evidence against him clearly, in a language he understands.
b. Questions should be clear, precise, and based on material evidence on record that incriminates the accused.
The court should not ask vague or hypothetical questions.
The accused should be given adequate time to consider and respond to each question.
The court should record the accused’s answers verbatim or in substance, not just “denies” or “no comments.”
The court should not skip or bypass any material piece of evidence while framing questions.
If the accused is represented by a lawyer, the lawyer may assist in framing or clarifying the accused’s answers.
If the accused refuses to answer, the court should record the refusal and proceed.
4. Important Case Laws Supporting Guidelines
a) Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P., AIR 1954 SC 300
The Supreme Court held that the accused must be given a real opportunity to explain incriminating circumstances.
The examination under Section 313 is not a mere formality but a substantive right.
The accused should be questioned about each material piece of evidence pointing towards guilt.
b) State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, AIR 1990 SC 1390
The court emphasized that the examination must be thorough and meaningful, not mechanical.
The accused’s explanation is a vital piece of material for the court to decide guilt or innocence.
c) Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik, AIR 2003 SC 355
Courts must record the answers of the accused accurately and cannot rely on vague or evasive denials.
The explanation under Section 313 can be considered as substantive evidence for the final verdict.
d) Mohd. Hussain v. State of Bihar, AIR 2000 SC 2236
The court must point out the material contradictions or incriminating evidence and give the accused a chance to explain.
Any mechanical or routine questioning defeats the purpose of Section 313.
e) Karnataka HC — State v. H.M. Ajaz (2022)
Reiterated that courts must frame pointed questions on material evidence and not proceed with mechanical or vague questioning.
The accused’s answers must be properly recorded and considered before judgment.
5. Practical Impact of These Guidelines
Helps to reduce trial court errors and ensure fair trial.
Enhances the accused’s right to a fair hearing.
Reduces grounds for appeal and revision based on inadequate Section 313 examination.
Maintains the integrity of criminal justice by ensuring accused is not condemned unheard on incriminating evidence.
6. Summary of the Procedure under the Guidelines
| Step | Court’s Obligation |
|---|---|
| 1 | Identify and isolate material evidence that incriminates the accused |
| 2 | Frame simple, clear questions on each such piece of evidence |
| 3 | Explain the questions to the accused in a language understood by him |
| 4 | Allow accused sufficient time to respond to each question |
| 5 | Record accused’s answers accurately and comprehensively |
| 6 | If accused refuses to answer, record refusal and proceed |
| 7 | Consider answers given in the judgment before conviction or acquittal |
7. Conclusion
The Karnataka High Court’s guidelines serve as a model for trial courts to ensure that Section 313 CrPC serves its true purpose — to protect the accused’s right to be heard and ensure the trial is fair and just. Adhering to these principles helps prevent miscarriages of justice and strengthens the criminal justice system.
RELATED Blog
0 comments