Case Note & Summary
The case involved an appeal concerning the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The first appellant, a software engineer residing in the USA, was accused along with his sister and parents of dowry-related offences following a complaint by his wife, Arundathi. After the trial court acquitted the accused, the High Court set aside the acquittal, mandating the personal examination of the accused under Section 313. The appellants contended that requiring personal presence was impractical and that their counsel should be allowed to answer on their behalf. The Supreme Court examined the legal framework surrounding Section 313, noting that while personal examination is generally required, exceptions could be made in cases of undue hardship. The court emphasized the need for a pragmatic approach, allowing the accused to submit an application to answer questions without being physically present, provided they demonstrate genuine difficulties and assure the court that no prejudice would result. The court concluded that such a procedure would not violate the legislative intent of Section 313 and directed that the trial court could consider such applications in future cases. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Examination of Accused - Personal Presence Requirement - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 313 - The court held that while the examination of the accused under Section 313 is generally mandatory, in exceptional circumstances where personal presence causes undue hardship, the court may allow the accused to answer through counsel, provided certain conditions are met. This approach aims to balance the rights of the accused with the practicalities of legal proceedings (Paras 1-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a criminal court can allow an advocate to answer questions on behalf of the accused instead of requiring the accused's personal presence during examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court clarified that while personal examination under Section 313 is generally mandatory, in exceptional circumstances where undue hardship is demonstrated, the court may allow the accused to answer through counsel. The court directed that the trial court could consider such applications in future cases.
Law Points
- Examination of accused
- Section 313
- Code of Criminal Procedure
- 1973
- personal presence
- legal representation
- hardship considerations
