16. Section 313, Cr.P.C. cannot be seen simply as a part of audi
alteram partem. It confers a valuable right upon an accused to
establish his innocence and can well be considered beyond a
statutory right as a constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 21
of the Constitution, even if it is not to be considered as a piece of
substantive evidence, not being on oath under Section 313(2),
Cr.P.C. The importance of this right has been considered time and
again by this court, but it yet remains to be applied in practice as we
shall see presently in the discussion to follow. If the accused takes a
defence after the prosecution evidence is closed, under Section
313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. the Court is duty bound under Section 313(4)
Page No.# 10/19
Cr.P.C. to consider the same. The mere use of the word ‘may’ cannot
be held to 12 confer a discretionary power on the court to consider
or not to consider such defence, since it constitutes a valuable right
of an accused for access to justice, and the likelihood of the
prejudice that may be caused thereby. Whether the defence is
acceptable or not and whether it is compatible or incompatible with
the evidence available is an entirely different matter. If there has
been no consideration at all of the defence taken under Section 313
Cr.P.C., in the given facts of a case, the conviction may well stand
vitiated. To our mind, a solemn duty is cast on the court in
dispensation of justice to adequately consider the defence of the
accused taken under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and to either accept or
reject the same for reasons specified in writing.