9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Mandatory personal questioning of the accused u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Whether the court can allow the advocate to answer questions on behalf of the accused in exigent conditions. Summary: Issue 1: Mandatory Personal Questioning of the Accused u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure The primary issue addressed was whether it is indispensably mandatory for the accused to be personally questioned by the court after the prosecution evidence is completed, as per Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court examined the legal position stated in Usha K. Pillai vs. Raj K. Srinivas & ors. {1993(3) SCR 467}, which held that there is no alternative permissible under law to personal questioning of the accused. The court referred to the historical context of Section 313, tracing its roots to Section 342 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. It highlighted that the provision is intended to benefit the accused by enabling them to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against them. The court also noted that the provision is not intended to nail the accused to any position but to comply with the principle of natural justice. Issue 2: Allowing Advocate to Answer Questions on Behalf of the Accused in Exigent Conditions The court considered whether, in exceptional circumstances, the court could allow the advocate to answer questions on behalf of the accused. The court acknowledged the advancements in communication technology and the improvement in legal aid facilities, suggesting that a fresh look at the provision might be warranted. The court proposed a pragmatic and humanistic approach, allowing for the possibility that in cases where the accused faces undue hardship or large expenses, the court could alleviate these difficulties. The court suggested that if the accused is unable to be physically present due to genuine difficulties, they could submit an application accompanied by an affidavit detailing their hardships and an assurance that no prejudice would be caused by their absence. The court outlined a procedure where the questionnaire could be supplied to the accused's advocate, who would then return it duly answered by the accused, along with an authenticated affidavit. This approach would ensure compliance with Section 313 in a substantial manner without violating legislative intent. Conclusion: The court concluded that in exceptional exigencies, the proposed course of action would not violate the legislative intent of Section 313 of the Code. The trial court was directed to pass appropriate orders if an application was made by the accused regarding their examination under Section 313, in light of the legal principles stated. The criminal appeal was disposed of accordingly.
|
