Supreme Court: Section 313 CrPC statement is not evidence and cannot be the sole basis for conviction

KanoonHQ Legal Gazette · AI-generated brief from the source linked below. How briefs are made

Published 31 October 2026

Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF)

In Jagannath Mandangi v. State of Odisha & Anr. Etc., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1114, the Supreme Court held that a statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is not evidence and cannot be the sole basis for convicting an accused. The court emphasized that such a statement only provides an opportunity for the accused to explain incriminating circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi · Legal Principle Established

A statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is not evidence and cannot be the sole basis for conviction. It serves only to enable the accused to explain circumstances appearing against them.

Practice & Procedural Impact for Advocates

Advocates should ensure that convictions are not sought or sustained solely on the basis of Section 313 CrPC statements. Litigants must understand that the prosecution needs to prove its case through independent evidence, not just the accused's explanations.

Key Legal Takeaways

1Section 313 CrPC statements are not evidence.
2Conviction cannot rest solely on an accused's Section 313 statement.
3The purpose of Section 313 is to allow the accused to explain incriminating circumstances.

The Legal Issue The Supreme Court addressed the evidentiary value of a statement made by an accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The core question was whether such a statement could form the sole basis for a conviction.

Court's Reasoning The Supreme Court clarified that a statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC (or Section 230 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for new proceedings) is not evidence in itself. Its primary purpose is to provide the accused with an opportunity to explain any incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against them. The Court reiterated that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt through independent evidence. A conviction cannot be sustained merely on the strength of an accused's statement under Section 313 CrPC, as it is not a substitute for substantive evidence.

What Follows This ruling reinforces the principle that the burden of proof lies squarely with the prosecution. Courts must not rely solely on the accused's explanation under Section 313 CrPC to establish guilt. Counsel must confirm whether CrPC or BNSS applies based on the proceeding's date. For new proceedings, Section 230 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponds to Section 313 of the CrPC.