Section 313 examination may be substituted in exceptional hardship to preserve fair trial and meaningful accused response

Section 313 CrPC ordinarily requires the accused to be personally questioned so incriminating circumstances can be explained, but the requirement is not absolute. In exceptional cases of genuine hardship, physical inability, or undue expense, the court may adopt a pragmatic substitute, including supplying a questionnaire through counsel with an affidavit and safeguards to ensure the answers are the accused's own. This limited dispensation preserves fair trial and natural justice while substantially complying with the statutory object. The refusal to interfere with the order granting no further dispensation was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a summons case where the accused's personal attendance has been dispensed with, the court may also dispense with the accused's examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and permit answers through counsel or a questionnaire in an exceptional case.

Analysis: Section 313 of the Code is intended to afford the accused a fair opportunity to explain incriminating circumstances and ordinarily requires personal questioning. The provision serves the accused as well as the court, and the general rule is that the accused should answer personally. At the same time, the Court recognised that the requirement is meant to secure fair trial and natural justice, not to inflict undue hardship. In exceptional circumstances, where personal appearance causes genuine difficulty, heavy expense, or physical inability, the court may adopt a pragmatic course so that the object of Section 313 is substantially achieved. The Court approved the limited procedure by which the questionnaire may be supplied through counsel, accompanied by an affidavit and safeguards ensuring that the accused's answers are truly his own.

Conclusion: The court may, in appropriate exceptional exigencies, dispense with the accused's personal presence for examination under Section 313 and adopt a substantial compliance procedure; the impugned refusal to interfere with the order below was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because no infirmity was shown in the refusal to grant the requested dispensation, and the conviction process was not disturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Personal examination under Section 313 is the general rule, but in exceptional cases of genuine hardship the court may permit a substitute procedure that substantially preserves the accused's opportunity to explain the evidence without violating legislative intent or fair trial requirements.

---