Section 313 Cr.P.C: Allahabad HC Acquits Appellant, Observes Statement Of Accused Not Substantive Evidence

The Allahabad High Court, recently held that an accused could not be convicted on the mere acceptance of guilt in the statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) 1973.

Bench of Justice Samit Gopal heard an appeal which challenged judgment and order passed by Additional Sessions Judge by which the appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo three years and six months of rigorous imprisonment.

The case of the prosecution was that the police received information that a person who had narcotics and a country made pistol was about to commit a crime. As per the police, the appellant fired upon them as soon as they reached to catch hold of him. Later on, they overpowered the appellant and found a country made pistol and empty cartridge on his person. 

An FIR was lodged against the appellant under Section 307 of the IPC, Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and under Section 8/22 of the Narcotics Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) 1985.

Appellant Accepted Guilt In Statement U/S 313 Cr.P.C.

During the trial, the appellant, in his 313 statement, plead guilty and submitted that leniency be shown to him.

Trial Court Convicted Appellant

The trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of the statement of witness, recovery memo and the statement of accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.

Statement Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Not Substantive Evidence

The Court, on the point of the Section 313 statement, observed that, "In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he has not given any reply to certain questions and further states of his being guilty and then in addition states of the court taking a lenient view in the sentence as he is in jail since long time."

The Court noted that it was undisputed that statement under Section 313 was not a substantive piece of evidence. It could be used for appreciating evidence led by the prosecution to accept or reject it.

Prosecution To First Establish Case Beyond Reasonable Doubt 

The Court observed that, "..it can be taken into consideration at the trial against an accused for arriving at his guilt or otherwise but the prosecution has to at the very first instance prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against him and then his explanation or answer to such incriminating circumstance should be looked into."

Considering that only one witness had been examined in the instant case who was from the police team itself and the corroboration of the weapon was absent, the Court noted that benefit of doubt had to be extended to the appellant.

Decision

The appellant was, henceforth, acquitted.