By the Court:

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State at length.

This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against conviction.

Before indulging and dealing with the facts and merits of the case, we feel it necessary to discuss the role of principle of natural justice in procedural law.

The principle of natural justice is one of the foundational principles of our justice delivery system. As we all know, the doctrine rests on two rules: Nemo judex in causa sua and Audi alteram partem. The principle is not limited to administrative law; it applies to all procedural law. This principle evolves through common law jurisprudence, safeguards against the arbitrary exercise of power, and is grounded in the broader concept of fairness in decision-making.

In “A.K. Kraipak vs. Union of India” reported in (1969) 2 SCC 262, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the object of natural justice is to secure justice and prevent miscarriage of justice. In “Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India” (1978) 1 SCC 248, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that any procedure affecting personal liberty must be fair, just, and reasonable.

Thus, the underlying requirement is fairness whenever the exercise of public or statutory power has the potential to adversely affect the rights, interests, or any civil consequence.

A criminal trial is not merely a mechanism for determining the guilt of an accused; it is a process governed by fairness, impartiality and reasonable opportunity to defend. These requirements flow principally from Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The principle of natural justice manifests itself in criminal proceedings through:-

 notice of the accusation

 knowledge of the evidence relied upon by the prosecution.

 opportunity to challenge the prosecution evidence.

 right of cross-examination

 opportunity to explain incriminating circumstances

 opportunity to lead a defense

 impartial adjudication

 legal representation, and

 fair and reasonable procedure.

Criminal jurisprudence therefore treats a fair trial as an integral component of Article 21.

In the case of “Zahira Habibulla H. Seikh vs. State of Gujarat” reported in (2004) 4 SCC 158, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a criminal trial must provide a meaningful opportunity to the prosecution, accused and other affected interested persons.

Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is a manifestation of the principle of Audi alteram partem in the Criminal Procedure Code. It gives statutory recognition to the principle that no one should be condemned unheard. The object of Section 313 Cr.P.C. is to give an opportunity to the accused to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence.

In “Sharad Birdhichand Sharda vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116, it has been held that the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is not evidence but is a valuable safeguard. This principle is being consistently followed.

Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. reads as under:

“313. Power to examine the accused.-(1) In every inquiry or trial, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court-(a) may, at any stage, without previously warning the accused, put such questions to him as the Court considers necessary;(b) shall, after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence, question him generally on the case:Provided that in a summons-case, where the Court has dispensed with the personal attendance of the accused, it may also dispense with his examination under clause (b).(2) No oath shall be administered to the accused when he is examined under sub-section (1).(3) The accused shall not render himself liable to punishment by refusing to answer such questions, or by giving false answers to