Section 313 CrPC omission in a summons case is not fatal unless prejudice or failure of justice is shown.

Non-recording of an accused's statement under Section 313 CrPC in a summons case does not automatically vitiate the proceedings. The provision is intended to give the accused an opportunity to explain incriminating circumstances, but the proviso allows personal examination to be dispensed with where attendance has been dispensed with. A conviction should not be disturbed unless prejudice or failure of justice is shown. Where the accused avoided the proceedings and remained absent despite opportunities, he could not rely on the omission to challenge the conviction, and the appellate court was said to have erred in treating the defect as fatal.

---

---

Issues: Whether non-recording of the accused's statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, in a summons case vitiated the proceedings and warranted setting aside the conviction.

Analysis: Section 313 is meant to enable the accused to personally explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him and to further the fair administration of criminal justice. In summons cases, the proviso permits dispensing with personal examination where attendance has been dispensed with. The defect of non-examination does not automatically nullify the trial; prejudice and failure of justice must be shown. On the facts, the accused had avoided the proceedings, failed to appear despite opportunities, and could not complain of a procedural lapse that arose from his own conduct. The appellate court's mechanical application of Section 313 ignored the nature of the case and the accused's conduct.

Conclusion: Non-recording of the accused's statement under Section 313 did not vitiate the conviction in the circumstances, and the conviction recorded by the trial court was required to be restored.

---