<p>The Supreme Court has held that a statement of the accused, recorded at the end of the trial against the evidence, could not be lightly brushed aside as false and untrustworthy since prosecution's failure to refute it on material grounds would affect the conviction.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices N V Ramana, Surya Kant and Krishna Murari said the opportunity given to the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code is "a valuable right of the accused to seek justice and defend oneself. Failure of the trial court to fairly apply its mind and consider the defence could endanger the conviction itself."</p>.<p>The court added that unlike the prosecution, which needs to prove its case beyond the reasonable doubt, the accused merely needs to create reasonable doubt or prove her version by a preponderance of probabilities.</p>.<p>"Thus, once a plausible version has been put forth in defence at the Section 313 CrPC examination stage, then it is for the prosecution to negate such defence plea," the bench said.</p>.<p>The court passed its judgement while allowing an appeal filed by Parminder Kaur, represented by advocate Dushyant Parashar, against the concurrent judgement of a trial court and Punjab and Haryana High Court. It acquitted her in the 24-year-old case of forcing a minor girl into illicit intercourse with her rich tenant and criminal intimidation.</p>.<p>The court noted a reasonable doubt in prosecution's case was created as the woman claimed that there was no male tenant at all in her house and no one except for her child and mother lived with her, and second, that she was being falsely implicated for filing a rape complaint against a person with whom the girl's father used to work.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court has held that a statement of the accused, recorded at the end of the trial against the evidence, could not be lightly brushed aside as false and untrustworthy since prosecution's failure to refute it on material grounds would affect the conviction.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices N V Ramana, Surya Kant and Krishna Murari said the opportunity given to the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code is "a valuable right of the accused to seek justice and defend oneself. Failure of the trial court to fairly apply its mind and consider the defence could endanger the conviction itself."</p>.<p>The court added that unlike the prosecution, which needs to prove its case beyond the reasonable doubt, the accused merely needs to create reasonable doubt or prove her version by a preponderance of probabilities.</p>.<p>"Thus, once a plausible version has been put forth in defence at the Section 313 CrPC examination stage, then it is for the prosecution to negate such defence plea," the bench said.</p>.<p>The court passed its judgement while allowing an appeal filed by Parminder Kaur, represented by advocate Dushyant Parashar, against the concurrent judgement of a trial court and Punjab and Haryana High Court. It acquitted her in the 24-year-old case of forcing a minor girl into illicit intercourse with her rich tenant and criminal intimidation.</p>.<p>The court noted a reasonable doubt in prosecution's case was created as the woman claimed that there was no male tenant at all in her house and no one except for her child and mother lived with her, and second, that she was being falsely implicated for filing a rape complaint against a person with whom the girl's father used to work.</p>
