The Hindu : Tamil Nadu News : Trial courts cautioned against common errors

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Apr 25, 2008
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu

Trial courts cautioned against common errors

Staff Reporter

While framing charges against the accused

MADURAI: The Madras High Court has cautioned trial courts in the State against certain common errors committed by them while framing charges against the accused and examining the latter under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Allowing a batch of criminal appeals filed before the Madurai Bench, Justices Prabha Sridevan and S. Nagamuthu said: “Questioning under Section 313 Cr. P. C. is not an empty formality, it is an important part of the trial and the trial judges would do well to remember this.

“The judges are bound to apply their mind while asking the questions. It is perhaps the only opportunity when the accused can give his explanation. The accused shall not suffer because the Court failed in its duty under Section 313 Cr. P. C. We hope more care is taken while recording Section 313 statement.”

No composite questions

The purpose of questioning under the Section was to enable the accused to personally explain the accusations made by the prosecution witnesses. Hence, the trial courts should not ask composite questions bundling many facts together. Questions must be such that the accused had an opportunity to focus his/her attention on the incriminating facts to which he/she could make a specific denial.

Writing the judgement for the Bench, Ms. Justice Sridevan also said: “We earnestly hope that more care should be given with regard to framing of charges too. This aspect of the matter should be borne in mind by all the trial judges.

“In criminal trials, judges are dealing with the right of liberty and in cases under Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code, right to life too. So they must remember that they are dealing with Constitutional rights. The procedure adopted by them shall not violate these rights.”

In the present case, the charge against the appellants included offences under Sections 120B (conspiracy), 341 (wrongful restraint), 302 read with 34 (common intention), 394 (causing hurt while committing robbery) and 402 (Assembling for committing dacoity) of the Indian Penal Code. “But the ingredients relating to the different sections are not found in the charge that is framed. There is nothing in the charge relating to conspiracy,” she observed.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Tamil Nadu