Section 313 CrPC Procedure Must Be Couched In A Form Which An Illiterate & Ignorant Person Is Able To Understand: Meghalaya HC
The Meghalaya High Court has observed that going by the object of Section 313 CrPC, the procedure adopted by trial courts discharging its duty must be couched in a form which an ignorant or illiterate person may be able to appreciate and understand.
Section 313 CrPC empowers the courts to examine the accused during an inquiry or trial, to enable the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.
Accordingly, a Bench of Justice B. Bhattacharjee while noting that the appellant was an illiterate person and thus required a careful and attentive approach of the Trial Court at the time of recording of his statement, observed, “The object of Section 313 CrPC is to afford the accused a fair and proper opportunity of explaining circumstances appearing against him and the procedure adopted by trial court in discharging its duty towards the object of Section 313 CrPC must be couched in a form which an ignorant or illiterate person may be able to appreciate and understand. The facts and situation in the present case projects lack of proper application of procedure of law rendering the entire statement of the appellant defective and perfunctory. Resultantly, considerations of answers of the appellant given in his statement under 313 CrPC by the learned Trial Court while passing the impugned judgment and order of conviction was not valid”.
Legal Aid Counsel M. Sharma appeared for the petitioner and GA S. Ain appeared for the respondent.
In the present matter, the criminal appeal was filed against a judgment and order of conviction, passed by the Special Judge (POCSO)/Additional District Judge in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The appellant was convicted and sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000 for sexual offenses against a 10-year-old child.
On production of the appellant before the Trial Court, he was provided with a State defence Counsel and after hearing both the parties, the charge under Section 5(m)/6 POCSO Act was framed. The prosecution examined witnesses, exhibited documents and material exhibits before the Trial Court in support of the case. The appellant was examined under 313 CrPC after completion of the prosecution witness. The appellant declined to adduce any defence witness. The matter was finally heard thereafter by the Trial Court and the impugned judgment and order of conviction and order of sentence was passed.
It was inter alia argued that the identity of the accused was not properly established and there were inconsistencies in the survivor's statements. The Court criticized the trial court's reliance on the survivor's statement to the investigating authority, as it violated Section 162 Cr.P.C., which prohibits the admissibility of statements made to the police during the investigation.
The Bench, however, dismissed the argument regarding the delay in lodging the FIR as the timing of the incident and the filing of the FIR did not indicate unreasonable delay. Resultantly, the Bench, was of the opinion that:
-medical evidence is considered corroborative and cannot replace substantive evidence. It can only support the testimony of eyewitnesses;
-statement under Section 164 of CrPC is not considered substantive evidence and cannot be relied upon solely for conviction;
-presumption under Section 29 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act requires foundational facts to be established by the prosecution with legally tenable evidence.
-the appellant's statement under Section 313 CrPC raises doubts due to discrepancies in the dates of recording and signing, indicating procedural irregularities;
-that proper procedure must be followed in recording the statement of an illiterate accused under Section 313 of the CrPC, which was not evident in the case;
-without legal proof to establish the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the court must give the benefit of doubt to the appellant and acquit them.
Accordingly, the bench set aside and quashed the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the Special Judge (POCSO)/ Addl D.C(J).
Appearances:
Petitioner: Legal Aid Counsel M. Sharma
Respondent: S. Ain, GA
Cause Title: Arjun Boro v. State of Meghalaya
Click here to read/download the Judgment
