BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court has laid down guidelines for trial courts to follow, while recording statements of the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC. Allowing the petition filed by Meenakshi and Thrinethra from Mysuru district, who have questioned the act of the Sessions Judge for refusing to record their statement and insisting that they answer in a single word -- “false” or “true”, Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar set aside the statements of the accused recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC and directed the trial court to re-examine the accused under the said section, following the guidelines issued by him.
The court directed the Registrar General of the High Court to circulate this order to all trial courts and the Karnataka Judicial Academy to prepare a model questionnaire and circulate it among all the trial courts for their guidance. Referring to the petitioners’ case, the court said, “The Sessions Judge has prepared two sets of questionnaires as there are two accused. But the questions in the two sets are almost common; they are lengthy; and the Sessions Judge has verbatim reproduced the evidence in examination-in-chief in the form of questions. The questions thus framed by the Sessions Judge do not serve the intendment of Section 313
of the Code.”
The court stated that recording of the accused’s statement is the stage where the latter gets an opportunity to explain an inculpatory evidence against him, and therefore, the questions must be framed in such a manner as he or she understands them, should be simple and specific to the evidence against the accused. A long string of questions couched in complex sentences must be avoided. Several distinct matters should not be rolled up, every question must cover a distinct incriminatory evidence.
The court also said that the practice has been to prepare as many sets of questionnaires as the number of accused are. In all the sets, the same questions are repeated, but to show that every accused is questioned individually, the signature of only one accused is taken on each set of questionnaire. Preparing the questionnaires equal to number of accused is not the correct procedure and it is also a waste of time, the court added.