Power to examine the accused
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with power to examine the accused. In every inquiry or trial, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court- (a) may at any stage, without previously warning the accused, put such questions to him as the Court considers necessary ; The Act came into force on 01 Apr 1974. Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
(1) In every inquiry or trial, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court-
(a) may at any stage, without previously warning the accused, put such questions to him as the Court considers necessary ;
(b) shall, after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence, question him generally on the case :
Provided that in a summons-case, where the Court has dispensed with the personal attendance of the accused, it may also dispense with his examination under clause (b).
(2) No oath shall be administered to the accused when he is examined under sub-section (1).
(3) The accused shall not render himself liable to punishment by refusing to answer such questions, or by giving false answers to them.
(4) The answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial, and put in evidence for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence which such answers may tend to show he has committed.
Section 313, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 351 Power to examine accused Text carried over almost unchanged 93%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Reena Hazarika v. State of Assam
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgement of Main Case order-5.pdf 2018-10-31 (not same-date order-6 ROP). Nariman/Navin Sinha, Crl A 1330/2018. A s.313 CrPC statement is a constitutional incident of a fair trial; the court must consider the accused's explanation on probabilities, especially in a circumstantial-evidence murder case. Failure to do so vitiates the conviction. Map CrPC 313 and successor BNSS 351.
On this section: s.313 is a fair-trial duty: the court must consider the accused's explanation on probabilities; ignoring it in a circumstantial case vitiates conviction.
-
Sukhjit Singh vs State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a trial court fails to put incriminating material and the core elements of the charge (such as abduction in a kidnapping case) to the accused under Section 313 CrPC, and when the prosecution evidence merely establishes peripheral facts (such as marital status) without substantiating the primary charge, the conviction is vitiated by procedural infirmity. The right to a fair trial, including the opportunity to explain specific circumstances appearing against the accused, is fundamental to the justice system. The absence of evidence establishing the core charge, combined with procedural violation, mandates acquittal.
On this section: Requires that the accused be questioned regarding incriminating material, circumstances appearing against him, and the prosecution case. The court held that questions must be fair, separate for each material circumstance, and put in a manner understandable to an illiterate or confused person. Failure to comply deprives the accused of a fair trial.
-
Gian Chand vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Once possession of contraband articles is established in a drug trafficking case, the statutory presumptions under Sections 35 and 54 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 operate against the accused, presuming conscious possession and knowledge of the contraband. The burden thereupon shifts to the accused to prove that he had no knowledge or conscious possession of the contraband. The absence of independent witnesses does not render police testimony unreliable if such testimony is found to be cogent, convincing, credible and reliable upon scrutiny. The failure to examine incriminating circumstances under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not vitiate the trial unless material prejudice to the accused is demonstrated. In cases of narcotics possession, the facts regarding how the contraband came to be in the vehicle fall within the special knowledge of the accused under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
On this section: Court must examine accused on evidence and circumstances against him; omission to do so must cause material prejudice to be ground for reversal
-
Rafiq Ahmed @ Rafi vs State of U. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused is charged with dacoity-with-murder under Section 396 IPC, the ingredient of murder defined under Section 300 IPC is expressly incorporated into Section 396 by specific statutory language. Therefore, if the evidence establishes that the accused committed murder but does not establish the dacoity component, the accused can be convicted for murder under Section 302 IPC without a specific charge for Section 302, provided: (a) the accused had notice that murder was an allegation against him through the Section 396 charge and Section 313 examination where facts were put to him; (b) he had full opportunity to defend himself; (c) no prejudice resulted to his right to fair trial, presumption of innocence, or the prosecution's burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; and (d) the ingredients of murder under Section 300 IPC are satisfied by the evidence. The principle of cognate offences permits such conviction when the graver offence (dacoity-with-murder) incorporates the essential elements of the lesser offence (murder) by express statutory language, and the accused suffered no failure of justice.
On this section: Statement of accused during trial. Applied to examine whether incriminating circumstances were put to appellant and his response
-
Dehal Singh vs State of H. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When contraband is recovered from a private vehicle in which an accused is traveling, both the driver and passengers are presumed to have conscious possession of such contraband. The burden then shifts to the accused to prove that possession was not conscious. Mere statements under Section 313 CrPC without examination as a witness under oath are insufficient to discharge this burden. Weight discrepancies in forensic samples are immaterial when field weighing is done using non-precision scales (such as grocery shop scales) and laboratory weighing is done using precision scales, provided there is no evidence of tampering with or mishandling of the samples. Compliance with procedural requirements under Section 50 of the NDPS Act (regarding search of persons) is satisfied by offering the accused an option to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate when the primary object of search is a vehicle, and personal search occurs incidentally after arrest at the police station.
On this section: Referenced regarding statements of accused under examination; court held such statements are not evidence and cannot be used to escape conviction without corroborating witness testimony or examination as witness under oath
-
Shaikh Maqsood vs State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A conviction cannot be sustained if the accused was not afforded a fair opportunity to explain circumstances appearing in evidence against him through proper questioning under Section 313 CrPC. Specifically, when no question was put to the accused establishing his authorship of the crime, or when material circumstances are not put to him separately, distinctly, and in comprehensible language, the conviction is infirm in law. The trial court must ensure that each material substance intended to be used against the accused is put to him separately in a manner that even an illiterate or perturbed mind can appreciate and understand.
On this section: Examination of accused; the court extensively analyzed this provision and held that failure to ask proper questions about material circumstances renders conviction infirm. The court emphasized that questions must be specific, separate, fair, and comprehensible to the accused
-
Inspector of Customs, Akhnoor J & K vs Yash Pal
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While the examination of an accused under Section 313 CrPC is mandatory in warrant cases and should generally be conducted personally, procedural flexibility may be introduced in special exigencies where personal attendance causes genuine hardship involving substantial expense or physical incapacity, provided the court has satisfied itself as to the genuineness of the hardship. However, when omission to put incriminating materials to an accused has in fact occurred at trial, the trial court must ordinarily eschew such materials from its consideration unless the accused is afforded opportunity to explain them, either during trial or by appellate-stage explanation. In this case, because the foundation of the prosecution case (voluntary confessions to Customs authorities) was not put to the accused at all, their acquittal could not be set aside.
On this section: This is the core provision examined in the judgment. Section 313 mandates that after prosecution evidence is closed, the court must question the accused to enable him to explain circumstances appearing against him. The judgment extensively discusses the scope, mandatory nature, and possible flexibility of this requirement.
-
State of Punjab vs Hari Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where an accused is charged with possession of narcotic articles under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, conscious possession - meaning awareness of the nature of the article coupled with a deliberate or intended state of mind - is an essential legal requirement. In the absence of questioning the accused under Section 313 CrPC regarding this vital element of the prosecution case, the trial suffers from a serious procedural infirmity that cannot be cured by circumstantial evidence of physical possession alone, and the conviction must be set aside as violating the fundamental principles of natural justice and fair trial.
On this section: Section 313 mandates examination of accused after prosecution evidence concludes. The court extensively analyzed this section, holding that failure to question accused on vital circumstances (here, conscious possession) is a serious infirmity that vitally affects the prosecution case. Court also interpreted the section liberally to allow alternative procedures in exceptional circumstances.
-
Umashanker vs State of Chhattisgarh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In prosecutions under Sections 489-B and 489-C of the Indian Penal Code (relating to use, trafficking, and possession of counterfeit currency notes), the Crown bears an essential burden of affirmatively proving the mens rea element - specifically, that the accused 'knew or had reason to believe' that the currency notes were forged or counterfeit. Mere possession of counterfeit notes, or even their use in a transaction, cannot, without more, lead to a conviction; the prosecution must lead affirmative evidence establishing the accused's guilty knowledge or belief. A presumption of mens rea drawn solely from the fact that witnesses identified a note as counterfeit is not warranted under Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act. Courts must be cautious in applying these statutory provisions and must not extend them to punish unwary possessors or users. The absence of any specific questioning of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding his knowledge of the counterfeit nature of the notes further vitiates the conviction when the only piece of evidence relied upon is circumstantial (possession and use).
On this section: Requires examination of the accused; the Court noted that no specific questions regarding the counterfeit nature of the notes were put to the appellant during his examination
-
Asrafkhan Kalandar Khan Pathan vs State of Gujarat
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In an appeal against acquittal based on circumstantial evidence, the appellate court must not merely substitute its view for that of the Trial Court. The appellate court must identify a gross error or significant mistake in the Trial Court's reasoning before interfering with an acquittal. Double presumption of innocence applies: the general presumption that every person is innocent unless proved guilty, and the reinforced presumption that arises once the Trial Court has acquitted. When medical and ballistic evidence are consistent with accidental death and no clear motive is established, homicidal death has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Statements made by the accused under Section 313 CrPC cannot be treated as evidence against him unless properly put to him during examination.
On this section: Examination of accused. Supreme Court clarified that statements made by accused under this section cannot be treated as evidence against him and cannot be used if not properly put to him during examination.
-
Dharampal Singh vs State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In narcotic drug possession cases under Section 18 NDPS Act, once the prosecution establishes possession of the illicit article (by proving recovery from a vehicle the accused was driving or occupying), the burden shifts to the accused to prove such possession was not conscious. In the case of private vehicles (not public transport), the mere fact of driving and occupying the vehicle from which narcotic drugs are recovered, combined with the statutory presumptions under Sections 54 and 35 NDPS Act, establishes conscious possession beyond reasonable doubt. The procedural requirement of Section 50 NDPS Act applies only to personal body searches and not to vehicle searches. The absence of questions explicitly framing the conclusion about conscious possession in Section 313 CrPC examination is not fatal if the circumstances leading to such conclusion were put to the accused and they failed to provide satisfactory explanation.
On this section: Right of accused to explain circumstances appearing against them in evidence. Court held that though the specific conclusion about conscious possession was not explicitly posed as a question, the circumstances leading to such conclusion (recovery of opium from the dicky of the vehicle driven by accused) were adequately put to the accused.
-
Lattu Mahto vs State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The conviction of accused persons cannot be sustained when the examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is defectively conducted and the specific accusations against each accused are not individually and clearly explained, thereby denying them the fundamental right to explanation as required by natural justice. Material circumstances appearing in evidence must be put to each accused person to enable them to explain such circumstances, and failure to do so may vitiate the entire trial if it results in miscarriage of justice. The court must ensure that proper and specific charges are framed and explained individually to each accused, and vague or general questions during Section 313 examination do not satisfy the statutory requirement to fairly enable the accused to explain circumstances against them.
On this section: Examination of accused - CORE ISSUE: Court held that Section 313 examination was defectively conducted; charges were not properly explained individually to each accused; only a general vague question was posed instead of specific questions on individual circumstances.
-
Dalbir Singh vs State of U. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused is charged with one offense (e.g., Section 302 IPC) and the evidence establishes a different offense (e.g., Section 306 IPC) for which no formal charge was framed, conviction under the latter offense is permissible under Section 464 Criminal Procedure Code if: (1) the accused had adequate notice of the allegations constituting that offense through cross-examination of witnesses and his examination under Section 313; (2) the main facts sought to be established were explained to him clearly; (3) he was given a fair and full opportunity to defend himself against those allegations; and (4) no substantial prejudice was caused to the accused. The determination of prejudice must employ a broad vision focusing on substance rather than technicalities, with the ultimate inquiry being whether the accused received a fair trial.
On this section: Examination of the accused; the court analyzed whether the main facts of the prosecution case were put to the accused during his examination, establishing that he had adequate notice of the allegations constituting Section 306 IPC.
-
State of Assam vs Faruk Ahmed
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In prosecutions for child marriage and sexual assault of minors under the POCSO Act and Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, the prosecution bears the burden of establishing the victim's age at the time of marriage through reliable documentary evidence such as birth certificates and marriage documents. Oral evidence alone, without corroborating documentary proof, is insufficient to establish that a marriage was a child marriage or that sexual assault occurred on a minor. The absence of such documentary evidence, despite the prosecution's duty to produce it, results in acquittal as the charges cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
On this section: Statement of Accused - The court recorded the statement of the accused under this section, wherein all incriminating circumstances were put to the accused, and he pleaded his innocence.
-
State of Assam vs Faruk Ahmed
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases. When the evidence presented by the prosecution fails to establish the charges with the requisite degree of certainty, the accused must be acquitted and discharged, regardless of the gravity of the allegations.
On this section: Recording of the accused's statement; the court followed this procedure before pronouncing judgment
-
State of Haryana vs Shakir @ Shahrukh, S/o- Jamil
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the prosecution case rests solely on the statements of official police witnesses without any independent corroborating witnesses, the evidence must be subjected to close scrutiny. The prosecution must establish both the actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind) of the accused, along with the causal connection between the alleged criminal acts and the accused person. Mere recovery of contraband articles does not establish the accused's involvement unless the prosecution proves the accused's direct participation in the offence. Procedural compliance, particularly the mandatory requirement to associate independent witnesses during recovery under Section 100(4) Cr.P.C., is essential for the credibility of the prosecution case. In the absence of such compliance and independent corroboration, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt and acquittal.
On this section: Recording of statement of accused person; accused denied allegations and opted to lead defence evidence
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The Trial 8. During the trial nineteen prosecution witnesses were examined. The examination of the appellant under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) was conducted on 12.07.2024. In his defence the appellant stated that he was a man who has achieved a lot of things in life, given shelter to the victim as she was in a sad state after her mother passed away. He had given good …
Questions about Section 313
What have the courts held on Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Reena Hazarika v. State of Assam (31 Oct 2018) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.313 is a fair-trial duty: the court must consider the accused's explanation on probabilities; ignoring it in a circumstantial case vitiates conviction. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 13 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2001 to 2026.
How do I find court cases under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: CRPC 313, section 313 CRPC, section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Reena Hazarika v. State of Assam (31 Oct 2018).
What should I read with Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 351 (Power to examine accused), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cited as CRPC 313, came into force on 01 Apr 1974, having been enacted on 25 Jan 1974. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 320. Compounding of offences1554 words
- 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours1005 words
- 220. Trial for more than one offence962 words
- 360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition804 words
- 2. Definitions799 words
- 198. Prosecution for offences against marriage774 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 330a1099-77ad-4a2e-b22a-769b33398f9e). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.