It was further contended by the learned Counsel for the Respondents that material questions regarding marriage, on which the prosecution had allegedly relied upon, were not put to the accused Under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, thereby causing great prejudice to them. We feel that there is no weight in this submission of the learned Counsel for the Respondents since the purpose of Section 313 is only to bring the attention of the accused to all the inculpatory pieces of evidence to give him an opportunity to offer an explanation if he chooses to do so. As has been succinctly held by this Court in Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya v. State of Rajasthan MANU/SC/0468/2013 : (2013) 5 SCC 722:
In a criminal trial, the purpose of examining the accused person Under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, is to meet the requirement of the principles of natural justice i.e. audi alteram partem. This means that the accused may be asked to furnish some explanation as regards the incriminating circumstances associated with him, and the court must take note of such explanation.
49. We feel that no such prejudice has been caused to the accused on account of the failure of this Court to examine them Under Section 313 on the facts alleged by the prosecution since they were not incriminating in nature. In any case, Nar Singh v. State of Haryana MANU/SC/1004/2014 : (2015) 1 SCC 496, is an authority for the proposition that accused is not per se entitled for acquittal on the ground of non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Criminal Appeal No. 1482 of 2013
Decided On: 20.10.2016
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Amitava Roy, JJ.
Citation:(2017) 11 SCC 195.
Read full judgment here: Click here
No comments:
Post a Comment