Criminal Procedure Code

Basavaraj R. Patil v. State of Karnataka

(2000) 8 SCC 740

Facts

Basavaraj R. Patil, a software engineer residing in the United States, and his sister were prosecuted for matrimonial cruelty and dowry-related offences.
Their personal attendance during trial had been dispensed with.
After prosecution evidence closed, the trial court reached the stage of examining the accused under Section 313 CrPC.
Basavaraj was in the United States, while his sister was studying far from the trial court.
Their lawyer requested that personal examination be dispensed with and endorsed that they had nothing further to state.
The trial court proceeded and ultimately acquitted the accused.
The High Court set aside the acquittal, holding that personal examination under Section 313 was mandatory in a warrant case.
The accused appealed to the Supreme Court. ( )

Whether an accused must always be physically present for examination under Section 313.
Whether exceptional hardship permits written answers through counsel.

Section 313 exists to give the accused a personal opportunity to explain every incriminating circumstance.
Personal examination after prosecution evidence is the general rule in warrant and Sessions cases.
The statement:
is not made on oath;
is not subject to cross-examination;
and primarily benefits the accused.
Exceptional dispensation may be permitted where:
personal attendance has already been exempted;
genuine hardship is proved;
the accused voluntarily requests an alternative;
and fair safeguards are adopted.
The application should contain an affidavit stating:
the genuine difficulty in appearing;
that no prejudice will be claimed;
and that the accused will not later challenge the procedure.
The court may send a written questionnaire through counsel and require signed, authenticated answers.
BNSS Section 351 corresponds to Section 313. ()

The Court accepted that the word “shall” ordinarily places a duty on the trial court to question the accused personally.
However, the provision exists for the accused’s benefit.
It should not be interpreted in a manner that creates:
extreme expense;
serious physical hardship;
or indefinite delay, where the accused themselves seek an alternative.
Basavaraj’s residence abroad made personal travel difficult and expensive.
His sister also showed practical difficulty in attendance.
The court could preserve the purpose of Section 313 by:
preparing every material question;
supplying it to counsel;
obtaining answers signed on every page;
and requiring an affidavit confirming that the answers were personally supplied.
If an accused failed to return the questionnaire, the exemption could be withdrawn.
The Court stressed that this flexibility was exceptional.
It could not become a routine method in serious criminal trials.
The trial judge had to be satisfied that:
the request was voluntary;
the hardship was real;
and the procedure would not weaken the accused’s opportunity to explain.
The complainant could not claim that omission of personal examination prejudiced her, because the safeguard principally protects the accused.

The Supreme Court held that personal examination remains the general rule but may be dispensed with in exceptional circumstances through an authenticated written questionnaire.
The trial court was permitted to deal with any renewed application according to the safeguards prescribed.
The judgment adopted a practical method of substantial compliance without abandoning the purpose of Section 313. ( )