The report “Jayalalithaa was only a ‘dormant partner' in firms, says Sasikala” ( The Hindu , February 19, 2012) says: “I was taking care of the administration of Jaya Publications Ltd. and Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa was not involved with the affairs of the firm. I alone operated the bank accounts,” Sasikala, former aide of Ms. Jayalalithaa, deposed in the Special Court here on Saturday.”
I would like to point out that under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the questions are put based on the evidence of the Prosecution witness appearing against the accused.
An oath is: “I speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but truth.” But under Sec. 313, no such oath is to be administered. Therefore, it has no evidentiary value at all. Secondly, the accused can refuse to answer. The accused can give false answers. No punishment. Sec. 313(3) says: “The accused shall not render himself liable to punishment for refusing to answer such questions, or by giving false answers to them.”
Readers may ask: why, then, this unnecessary exercise? The answer is, the accused must know what all exist against them. They can prepare for the defence even if not safeguarded earlier through the cross-examinations. Therefore, the Supreme Court said Sec. 313 is a salutary provision.
If one wants to admit, it is possible in the initial stage itself, when the plea of guilt is recorded — pleading guilty or not guilty? The answers given under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. are not confession at all. A confession can be made as per the procedure laid down under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C . Only then what the accused says is treated as confession.
Therefore, the answers given under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C are not admission; not deposition; not confession. They are neither detrimental to the answerer nor beneficial to others.
Dr. A.E. Chelliah,
Chennai
