Premature Section 313 examination is a prejudicial irregularity when prosecution evidence is incomplete and later testimony remains unaddressed

Section 313 CrPC requires the accused to be questioned only after completion of prosecution evidence and before the defence stage, so that every incriminating circumstance is put to answer. Recording that statement while prosecution evidence remained incomplete, including where an important witness was examined later, did not satisfy the statutory mandate. The defect was treated as a prejudicial irregularity, not a curable procedural lapse, because the accused was denied a proper opportunity to explain the entire prosecution case. The result stated is that such premature recording vitiates the trial and warrants interference.

---

---

Issues: Whether recording the accused's statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before completion of the prosecution evidence vitiated the trial and justified interference in revision.

Analysis: Section 313 requires the Court to question the accused after the prosecution witnesses have been examined and before the accused is called on for defence, so that the accused may explain every circumstance appearing in the evidence against him. Recording that statement on the day of appearance, when prosecution evidence was still incomplete and an important witness was examined later, did not satisfy the statutory mandate. The omission was not a mere irregularity curable under Section 465, because the accused was deprived of a proper opportunity to answer all incriminating circumstances and prejudice was inherent in the procedure adopted.

Conclusion: The recording of the Section 313 statement before completion of prosecution evidence was a serious irregularity that vitiated the proceedings from the stage of the accused's plea, warranting setting aside of the concurrent findings and remand.

Ratio Decidendi: A statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 must be recorded only after completion of prosecution evidence and before the accused is called on for defence, and recording it earlier on incomplete evidence amounts to prejudicial irregularity vitiating the trial.

---