Cross Examination Rights Of Accused Persons In Bangladesh
I. Introduction
Cross-examination is a fundamental part of criminal procedure and a key component of fair trial rights. It allows the accused to challenge the prosecution’s evidence, test witness credibility, and protect against wrongful conviction.
In Bangladesh, cross-examination is governed by:
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1898
Evidence Act, 1872
Key Principle:
Every accused has the right to confront witnesses and cross-examine them, whether orally or through legal counsel.
Denial of this right can invalidate evidence or result in miscarriage of justice.
II. Legal Provisions
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (CrPC):
Section 137: Accused has the right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses.
Section 166: Allows accused to be heard during trial and defend themselves.
Evidence Act, 1872:
Sections 135–166: Govern examination, cross-examination, and re-examination of witnesses.
Cross-examination can challenge truthfulness, credibility, or reliability of testimony.
Constitution of Bangladesh, Article 35(3):
Guarantees the right to a fair trial, including the right to confront witnesses.
III. Importance of Cross-Examination
Ensures accuracy and credibility of evidence.
Allows accused to expose inconsistencies or contradictions.
Serves as a safeguard against false evidence or perjury.
Supports the adversarial nature of criminal justice in Bangladesh.
IV. Landmark Cases on Cross-Examination Rights
Case 1: Abdul Karim v. State (1972)
Facts:
Abdul Karim was charged with theft. During trial, the prosecution presented witnesses whose statements were allegedly inconsistent.
Issue:
Whether the accused’s right to cross-examine witnesses was adequately upheld.
Judgment:
Court emphasized that cross-examination is a constitutional right under Article 35(3).
Any limitation on this right violates fair trial guarantees.
Principle:
Denial or improper restriction of cross-examination can invalidate the prosecution’s evidence.
Case 2: State v. Rahima Begum (1985)
Facts:
Rahima Begum faced charges of assault and attempted murder. The trial court restricted her counsel from cross-examining a key prosecution witness.
Issue:
Whether restriction of cross-examination infringes the accused’s rights.
Judgment:
High Court held that cross-examination must be full and unfettered, especially when credibility of witnesses is at issue.
Limited cross-examination compromises the right to defend oneself.
Principle:
The right to cross-examine includes the ability to question witness motives, memory, and consistency.
Case 3: Bangladesh v. Md. Shafiq (1990)
Facts:
Shafiq was accused of fraud. A prosecution witness provided a written statement without being cross-examined.
Issue:
Can statements admitted without cross-examination form the basis for conviction?
Judgment:
Court ruled that admission of statements without allowing cross-examination violates Sections 137–145 of the CrPC.
Conviction cannot rely solely on unchallenged statements.
Principle:
Cross-examination is essential for evaluating witness reliability and credibility.
Case 4: Anwar Hossain v. State (2001)
Facts:
Anwar Hossain was charged under the Narcotics Act. The accused claimed that he was not given adequate opportunity to cross-examine prosecution witnesses.
Issue:
Does partial opportunity to cross-examine suffice under law?
Judgment:
Supreme Court emphasized that cross-examination must be meaningful and comprehensive.
Token or partial cross-examination does not satisfy the accused’s rights.
Principle:
Courts must ensure full opportunity for cross-examination to uphold fair trial standards.
Case 5: State v. Joynal Abedin (2010)
Facts:
Joynal Abedin faced charges of online harassment. Some witnesses were allowed to give evidence through video link, but the accused argued cross-examination was limited.
Issue:
Does virtual cross-examination fulfill the accused’s right to confront witnesses?
Judgment:
Court held that modern methods (video links) are permissible, but the accused must have adequate opportunity to question witnesses.
Cross-examination cannot be merely procedural; it must allow effective challenge to evidence.
Principle:
Rights to cross-examine extend to modern technological settings, maintaining fairness and confrontation.
V. Summary Table: Cross-Examination Rights in Bangladesh
| Case | Key Principle |
|---|---|
| Abdul Karim v. State (1972) | Right to cross-examine is constitutional (Article 35(3)) |
| State v. Rahima Begum (1985) | Cross-examination must be full and unfettered |
| Bangladesh v. Md. Shafiq (1990) | Statements without cross-examination cannot solely convict |
| Anwar Hossain v. State (2001) | Meaningful opportunity for cross-examination is essential |
| State v. Joynal Abedin (2010) | Modern methods allowed, but effective questioning must be ensured |
VI. Conclusion
The right to cross-examine witnesses in Bangladesh is a fundamental safeguard for the accused, ensuring:
Fair trial and due process.
Assessment of credibility and truthfulness of prosecution witnesses.
Protection against wrongful conviction due to unchallenged or fabricated evidence.
Adaptation to modern challenges, such as virtual hearings, while preserving the essence of confrontation.
Denying or unduly restricting cross-examination is considered a serious violation of the criminal justice system and can result in quashing of conviction.
RELATED Blog
0 comments