Assignment on

Critical Evaluation of Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1898: Problems and Prospects Option.

Course Title: Law of Criminal Procedure-II

Course Code: LLBH 311

Prepared for Prepared by

Course Teacher’s Name: Ms.Mirza Farzana
Iqbal Chowdhury
Teacher’s Post: Assistant Professor
Department of Law
Green University of Bangladesh
Student’s Name: Sadia Afrin
Student’s ID: 191011054(2)
Department of Law
Green University of Bangladesh

Date of Submission:26/07/2021

1
Table of Contents
Critical Evaluation of Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898: Problems and
Prospects Option. ............................................................................................................. 1
Introductory Issue............................................................................................................. 3
1.1Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 3
1.2 Objectives of the Study....................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Methodology of the study .................................................................................................. 3
1.4 Limitations of the study ...................................................................................................... 3
Defined terms for the purposes of section 342, Cr. PC in cases ........................................... 4
Critical Evaluation of Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. ....................... 5
3.1Scope and Objective of Section 342, CrPC ......................................................................... 5
Case law: ................................................................................................................................. 5
3.2 Procedure for Examining the Accused ................................................................................. 6
3.3 EVIDENTIARY VALU OF SECTION 342 OF CrPC: ..................................................................... 7
3.4 Non-compliance with the rule on interrogation of the Accused............................................ 8
3.5 MANNER FROM RECORDING THE EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED ............................................ 8
Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898: Problems and Prospects Option ..... 10
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 11
REFFRENCE ..................................................................................................................... 12

2
 Chapter---1
Introductory Issue
1.1Introduction
This article deals with the interrogation of accused persons under Section 342 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure 1898 The core belief of the Indian Judicial system is "It is better that ten
guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer".
To fulfil these fundamental requirements of Natural Justice, Section 342 plays an important
role. This article further discusses the procedure of Section 342 under the Code Of Criminal
Procedure 1898.
Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 ensure that the accused is aware and
informed of the prosecution's case against him so that he can prepare his defence and argue
his case effectively in court. The procedure thus satisfies the requirement of the principle of
natural justice - the right to be heard or Audi alteram partem.
such provision which secures the principle of natural justice to the accused is Section 342,
CrPC. The formal title of the section suggests that it allows the court to hear the accused.
However, it becomes clear that the purpose of the same is to enable the accused to explain
any incriminating circumstances which may be present in the evidence against him.
Thus, it not only enables the court to question the accused at any time and without warning,
but it also enables the accused to personally enter into a dialogue with the court to declare
his innocence.1
1.2 Objectives of the Study
This assignment has been conducted with the following objectives:
1. To develop an understanding Critical Evaluation of Section 342 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1898.
2. Drawing its problems and solution.
3. To analyze the Critical Evaluation of Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898:
Problems and Prospects Option.
1.3 Methodology of the study
The methods and techniques of data collection are the key mechanism in an obligation.
The method must be steady with the objectives of the study that can cover the whole area of
attention. In this study only secondary data have been composed. Secondary information
have been collected from concerned books, journals, periodicals, other materials and teacher
lectures.
1.4 Limitations of the study
No assignment is free from certain limitations. Following are the limitations:
1. This study has been lead in a specific ground especially in books, journals, periodicals, other
materials, and teacher lectures.
2. This study has been able within a short time. For such a time constraint it is not possible to
collect detailed data and information on the issue in the current pandemic situation in the
world.

1
https://www.barandbench.com/columns/section-313-crpc-audi-alteram-partem-and-the-rights-of-the-
accused 7:3325/07/2021

3
 Chapter---2

Defined terms for the purposes of section 342, Cr. PC in cases

"Accused person"
For the purposes of section 313, Cr. PC, "accused" means a person against whom proceedings
are in progress and who is under the control of the court, and not a person who has been
charged in another case under the same jurisdiction of the court.

"Personal"
The term is used to indicate the opportunity afforded the accused to make a statement based
on the incriminating evidence that would have been presented to him during cross-
examination by his counsel. Moreover, it would be premature to seek information in person
until the defendant has exhausted all opportunities to cross-examine the witness.

"At any stage"

The court has discretionary authority to question the defendant under § 342 at any time
during the trial or investigation, even before an appropriate charge is filed.
Under makes it the responsibility of the court to place before the accused any evidence which
appears to be incriminating against him and accordingly an answer is required to be given
thereto.
It is also important to note that the accused is given the option of not taking the opportunity
to make a statement against the evidence incriminating him in court.
Attention must be drawn to the incriminating evidence to enable the accused to make a
statement against the evidence adduced against him, if he chooses to do so. The court is
required by law under this section to produce all incriminating materials and to invite the
accused to make a statement. Circumstances not produced before the accused cannot be
used against him at his interrogation under Section 342, CrPC .

"Interrogation of accused u/s 342 CrPC more than once"

If the court has already conducted an enquiry of the accused, the court has the power to call
the accused before the court again for enquiry and answer before the court. However, it is
noted that at the conclusion of the prosecution's evidence, the power to summon an accused
more than once should not be used in a routine or mechanical manner.
If any new witnesses are examined after the examination of the accused, it is mandatory to
further examine the accused under Section 342, CrPC.

4
 Chapter---3

Critical Evaluation of Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1898.

The accused must be examined in any investigation or trial, by enabling him to make a
personal statement of the circumstances which appear as evidence against him. Section 342
of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 provides for the power of the court to interrogate the
accused to explain the evidence adduced against him. We all know that it is a fundamental
principle of justice that no one should be convicted unheard of to satisfy the requirement of
the principles of natural justice as it requires that an accused should be given an opportunity
to give an explanation of the incriminating material which had come against him at the trial.
His statement, however, cannot be made the basis of his conviction.

▪ may, at any stage of the investigation or trial, without previous warning to the
accused, put such questions to him or her as the court thinks necessary,
▪ shall, for that purpose, question him generally on the merits of the case after the
prosecution witnesses have been examined and before he or she is called in his or her
defence (CRPC, s 342(1)).
▪ The accused is not liable to prosecution if he refuses to answer such questions or gives
false answers. However, the court may draw such inferences from such refusal or
answer as it thinks fit (CrPC, s 342(2)).
▪ This section is intended to establish a direct dialogue between the court and the
defendant to allow him to make his statement.

3.1Scope and Objective of Section 342, CrPC

The scope and objective of Section 313 of the Code were determined as follows:
To establish a direct dialog between the accused and the court: by presenting all
incriminating evidence against the accused and providing a platform for the accused to
explain himself.
To test the truth of the charge: The questioning of the accused is not a mere procedural
formality, but is important to test the credibility of the case presented by the prosecution
before the court.

Case law:

In the 1995 case of Abdul Wahab v Crown, it was held that the very purpose of section 342 is
not to subject the accused to stated cross-examination. Rather, it is to draw his or her
attention to the point or points in the evidence which are likely to influence the mind of the
court to reach conclusions adverse to the accused, and before such an adverse conclusion can

5
be reached, the accused should be given an opportunity to make a It is not a mere formality
but an essential part of the process that the accused be informed of the point or points which
he or she must meet in order to exculpate himself or herself.

In the case of State v Kabel Molla (2003), the High Court Division held that interrogation of
the accused under s 342 CrPC is not a mere formality and it is a fundamental principle of law
that the attention of the accused must be directed accurately to the evidence on
In the case of Shahid Mia v State (2008)7 the accused Shahid allegedly used a razor to injure
Abu Bakar (PW.I) and Humayun Kabir (PW. 2) but in the examination of the accused under s
342, the razor was not pleaded as a circumstance. Therefore, the High Court Division held
that the accused were not given an opportunity to state any circumstance against them. The
court observed that it is an established principle of law that the questioning of a defendant
under s 342 is not an idle formality and for that reason must be carefully conducted in the
interests of justice and fair play to the defendant.

Mahbubuddin Ahmed v State (2005) the High Court Division observed that the fundamental
principle underlying s 342 CIPC is that the accused should be given a full and fair opportunity
to explain the evidence and circumstances against him or her. The court added that s 342 is
primarily intended to benefit the accused and, as its corollary, the court in making its final
determination, and the provisions inserted in this section are intended to conform to the most
salutary principles of natural justice embodied in the maxim audi altarem partem. However,
Appellate Division held in Jahsimuddin v. State (2004) that where a defendant has entered a
plea of guilty, a conviction of that defendant may proceed without the defendant being
questioned under s 342.

3.2 Procedure for Examining the Accused

The proper mode of interrogation under s 342 is to recite to the accused the salient
circumstances and features of the evidence and then to call upon him to give his explanation,
if any, for them. Thereafter, the accused must be asked whether he wishes to present any
defence evidence.
The duty is laid upon the courts to question the accused properly and fairly, so that the precise
facts which the accused is required to state may be laid before him or her in plain words, and
he may thereby be given an opportunity of explaining every point. This is an important and
salutary provision, and should not be neglected. It is not a proper fulfilment of s 342 to read
out a long series of questions and answers made in the committal court and ask the accused
whether the statement is correct. Such a question is misleading. Next, it is not enough to
string together a long series of facts and ask the defendant what he or she has to say about
them. He or she must be questioned separately about each material fact to be used against
him or her.
If the conviction is to be based principally upon the confession of the accused, the attention
of the accused must be directed to such confession, and he must be given an opportunity to
speak on the material aspects of the confession. The mere question whether or not he or she
has made a confession is not sufficient. He or she must be asked whether or not he or she has
confessed in a particular way. As per Section 342 of Criminal Procedure Code 1898, the
accused are often interrogated at every stage of the trial and at the end of the prosecution

6
evidence, to understand the procedure of interrogation of the accused, it is relevant to search
342 of CrPC.
On an intelligible reading of section 342 of Criminal Procedure Code 1898, the primary half
provides the court discretion to interrogate the accused at any stage of investigation while
not giving prior warning because the second part is mandatory. the use of the word "may" in
shows that the court is given a discretion. However, uses the word "shall" and makes
interrogation mandatory. Once a suspect is questioned as above, he is not required to take
an oath. Nor does he render himself liable by refusing to answer such questions or by giving
wrong answers. The answers given by the accused in such questioning would possibly even
be used for or against him in the course of the adversary investigation or trial for the other
offence to which such answers might indicate.
In questioning the accused, the court must take care to ensure that the questions are
supported by the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses in order to elicit
incriminating evidence from the prosecution evidence. The questions should be clear, logical
and comprehensible and must not leave any ambiguity in the questioning of the accused. In
questioning the accused, the court should take into account the socio-economic and
educational qualifications of the accused and his ability to grasp the questions put to him.
The court shall take special care in questioning rustic and uneducated accused. The accused,
unless he is an intelligent person with a good memory, will not even remember all the
circumstances communicated to him during his explanation. This affinity will lead to a
miscarriage of justice. If the accused is asked inaccurate questions, he will not have a chance
to explain himself promptly and effectively. The statements of each witness and also the
incriminating evidence thereon should be questioned individually and not once all the
accused should be questioned properly at once. Quick questioning of all the accused on the
incriminating evidence found by the prosecution is not expedient as the role and involvement
of each accused may vary depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore,
it is often exciting to question each litigant individually about the incriminating evidence
found against them during the trial.
For example, if a piece of writing that can be used to commit a crime (e.g., a murder weapon)
is found in the defendant's home, the court may address the defendant on the circumstances
under which that particular item was found in the defendant's possession.

3.3 EVIDENTIARY VALU OF SECTION 342 OF CrPC:

In Munish Mubar v. State of Haryana; AIR 2013 SC 912 it was mandatory for the court to
present all incriminating material relating to the accused, even in cases of circumstantial
evidence, so as to whether the chain of circumstances is complete while hearing the argument
of the accused against the evidence presented within the court.
It was further reiterated in Mushir Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh; AIR 2010 SC 762. In the
Munish Mubar Case, the court held that
"Circumstantial evidence could also be a deep companion to the actual matrix, creating a fine
web through which there can be no escape for the accused, especially because such facts,
when taken as a whole, do not allow us to draw the opposite inference, but one pointing to
the guilt of the accused.

7
3.4 Non-compliance with the rule on interrogation of the Accused
In exercising its power to interrogate the accused under s 342 CrPC the court must take care
to ensure that all relevant circumstances appearing in the evidence are put before the
accused. The court is required to question the accused generally on the merits of the case in
order to enable him to explain all the circumstances which appear in the evidence against
him. It is the duty of the court to properly comply with this requirement in order to avoid any
possible prejudice to the accused on this point.If any point appears in the evidence against
the accused which the court considers to be material, it is the duty of the court to draw the
attention of the accused to that point and to ask him to explain it. Section 342 CrPC was
enacted to protect the interests of the accused and to enable them to explain any
circumstances against them and so the duty was imposed on the criminal courts to question
the accused generally about the case after the conclusion of the prosecution and before the
accused commences his defence. In the case of Mahbubuddin Ahmed v. State (2005) it was
revealed that at the time of his interrogation under Section 342, the convict made a written
statement insisting on his or her innocence and false implication in the case. In the written
statement, the convict presented a complete picture of the case programmed by him and
explained the circumstances which led the prosecution witness No. 1 (PW 1) and his family
members to implicate him in the false case. He also produced papers and documents in
support of the contents of the written statement. However, as found by the High Court
Division, the trial judge did not bother at all to consider the written statement and the papers
and documents annexed thereto in support of the innocence of the convict. The court held
that the trial judge's failure to consider the written statement and the papers and documents
in support thereof and his absolute silence thereon caused serious prejudice to the convict
and materially affected the determination of the case. 19 However, in Abdur Razzaque v.
State (1976)Appellate Division held that there was no error in the trial where there was no
question of bias on account of any error in the inquiry under s 342 CrPC. The court added that
when the prosecution witnesses are cross-examined at length by the defence and the entire
defence case was presented to the court and the witnesses, the accused was fully aware of
the prosecution case and heard the evidence from beginning to end; therefore, the accused
cannot have any difficulty in following the trial In this case, it was observed that after the
conclusion of the prosecution evidence and during the interrogation under s 342 CrPC, the
accused were asked the question that they have heard the evidence against them in detail
and they were asked if they have anything to say and their reply was simply that they are In
these circumstances it cannot be said that because of general questions put to the accused
during questioning under s 342 a miscarriage of justice or a failure of justice was caused and
as such there is no question of prejudice to the accused in the trial conducted against him or
her.

3.5 MANNER FROM RECORDING THE EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED

When the accused is interrogated by a Magistrate or by a Court other than the High Court
Division, the whole of the interrogation, including all questions put to him and all answers
given by him, or her will be recorded in full in the language in which he or she is interrogated
or, if that is not possible, in the language of the Court or in This record will be shown or read
to the accused or, if he or she does not understand the language in which it is written,
interpreted into a language which he does understand, and he shall be at liberty to explain or
supplement his answer (CrPC, s 364(1)). If the whole record is consistent with what he or she
declares to be the truth, the record is signed by the accused and the magistrate or judge of

8
the court. That magistrate or judge shall certify in his or her own hand that the interrogation
took place in his or her presence and hearing and that the record contains a full and true
statement of the evidence given by the accused (CrPC, s 364(2)). In cases where the
questioning of the accused is not recorded by the magistrate or judge himself, he is required
to make a note in the course of the questioning in the language of the court or in English if he
is sufficiently familiar with the latter language. This note shall be written and signed by the
judge or magistrate in his own hand and will be annexed to the record. If the magistrate or
judge is unable to write such a memorandum, he or she will record the reason for that inability
(CrPC, s 364(3)). It should be noted that the above method of recording the investigation does
not apply to the investigation of an accused person in summary proceedings under s 263CrPC
(CTPC, s 364(4)).

9
 Chapter---4

Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898: Problems and

Prospects Option

It is settled case law that it is not mandatory in every case to interrogate the accused under
above section. If there are no circumstances militating against the accused, the court should
not ask questions to the accused. If answers to improper and wrong questions are elicited,
they cannot be considered. If the accused has pleaded guilty to the charge, then the question
of interrogation does not arise. If the accused has himself entered a plea of guilty, then it is
not necessary to question the accused in the inquiry. It is not the intention of the legislature
to elicit a statement from the accused for which there is no evidence.

10
 Chapter---5

CONCLUSION
The law requires that every piece of incriminating evidence must be separately placed before
the accused.
Section 342 CrPC is based on the fundamental principle of fairness. Attention of the accused
provides an explanation if he chooses to do so. Therefore, the court is required by law to place
the incriminating circumstances before the accused and obtain his response. This rule is
peremptory in nature and imposes a mandatory duty on the court and confers a
corresponding right on the accused to have an opportunity to give an explanation of the
incriminating material against him. The trial Judge should be careful to ask questions of
inquisitorial nature to the accuse, just because the statements of the accused under this
section are not the sole basis for conviction, the presiding officer cannot be treated as a
formality as it involves a lot of impropriety in the evaluation of evidence.2

2 http://www.ejusticeindia.com/examination-of-accused-under-section-313-of-cr-p-c/ 8:45
26/07/2021

11
 Chapter---6
REFFRENCE
1. https://districts.ecourts.gov.in/sites/default/files/workshopscjrajam.pdf
2. http://www.ejusticeindia.com/examination-of-accused-under-section-313-of-cr-p-c/
8:45 26/07/2021
3. https://districts.ecourts.gov.in/sites/default/files/Workshop-II%20Material%202.pdf
4. https://www.barandbench.com/columns/section-313-crpc-audi-alteram-partem-
and-the-rights-of-the-accused 7:3325/07/2021

12