In a recent landmark judgment in the case titled INDRAKUNWAR V. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1730 OF 2012 , the Supreme Court of India not only acquitted a woman who had been convicted of murdering her own child and sentenced to life imprisonment but also shed light on the significance of a statement made by the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This judgment outlined several key principles that govern the process of recording an accused person’s statement under Section 313 of the CrPC.
1. Objective of the Section : The primary objective of Section 313 is to enable the accused to explain any circumstances that appear in the evidence against them. It serves as a crucial step in establishing a dialogue between the court and the accused.
2. Principle of Natural Justice : The process enshrined in Section 313 is not a mere procedural formality but is based on the cardinal principle of natural justice, “audi alterampartem,” which means “hear the other side.” It ensures that the accused is given a fair opportunity to respond to the case made against them.
3. Ultimate Test of Compliance : The ultimate test for determining whether Section 313 has been complied with is to inquire whether the accused was provided with the opportunity to present their side of the story.
4. Nature of Statement : In this statement, the accused may choose to admit involvement, deny the allegations, provide an alternative version of events, or offer an interpretation. The law does not penalize the accused for remaining silent or providing false information.
5. Limited Evidentiary Value : The statement under Section 313 is not considered substantive evidence and does not qualify as a piece of evidence under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Instead, it is a means to examine the veracity of the prosecution’s case.
6. Holistic Reading : The statement should be read as a whole, and individual parts should not be taken out of context. It provides an opportunity for the accused to provide a comprehensive account of their defense.
7. Obligation to Question : The court has an obligation to pose questions to the accused about all incriminating circumstances to provide an opportunity for the defense to explain those circumstances. The responses provided by the accused must be carefully scrutinized and considered.
8. Prejudice and Fair Decision : Non-compliance with Section 313 can lead to prejudice against the accused and hinder the process of arriving at a fair decision.
9. Protection of Privacy : The judgment also emphasized the importance of respecting the fundamental right to privacy when disclosing aspects required for adjudicating a criminal matter. Privacy must not be unreasonably and unwarrantedly infringed upon.
The case that prompted this significant judgment involved the prosecution’s claim that the appellant had relations with a co-villager, Baiga Gond, which led to her pregnancy. After giving birth, she was alleged to have killed her child and disposed of the body in a water body (dabri).
In her Section 313 CrPC statement, the accused admitted to being pregnant. This admission led to the trial court drawing further inferences, ultimately resulting in her conviction for the child’s murder. The High Court upheld this decision.
However, the Supreme Court critically examined the trial court’s approach and underscored the significance of balancing the duty to disclose necessary aspects in a criminal case with the fundamental right to privacy.
This judgment serves as a reminder that the process under Section 313 CrPC is not a mere formality but a crucial element of natural justice. It ensures that accused individuals have the opportunity to provide their side of the story and participate in the legal proceedings effectively. Furthermore, it reiterates the importance of protecting an individual’s right to privacy, even in the context of a criminal case.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s elucidation of the principles governing Section 313 of the CrPC reaffirms the commitment to ensuring fair and just legal processes while respecting individual rights and privacy. This judgment will serve as a significant precedent in future criminal cases, emphasizing the need for a balanced and equitable approach to criminal proceedings.