Examination Of Accused Under Section 342 Crpc Bangladesh
🔹 1. Section 342, CrPC – Overview
Section 342, CrPC (Bangladesh) deals with the examination of the accused regarding charges before recording evidence. Key points:
Purpose:
To afford the accused an opportunity to explain their version before prosecution witnesses are examined.
To clarify whether the accused denies, admits, or offers an explanation for the charges.
Procedure:
Court reads or explains the charges to the accused.
Accused is asked to plead guilty or not guilty.
If accused claims guilt, court may consider this for conviction.
If accused denies, they may later examine witnesses and give evidence under Section 313 (Bangladesh equivalent).
Legal Nature:
Section 342 is not a trial stage, but a preliminary examination.
Protects the principle of natural justice by letting the accused respond to charges.
Rights of Accused:
Right to remain silent.
Right to explain circumstances of the case.
Right to consult a lawyer before giving the statement.
🔹 2. Judicial Interpretation – Key Principles
Courts in Bangladesh have emphasized that:
Section 342 is mandatory for informing the accused of charges.
Failure to conduct proper examination under Section 342 may lead to procedural irregularity, affecting conviction.
Accused is not bound to make a full disclosure; partial denial does not amount to admission.
Statement under Section 342 cannot be treated as evidence against the accused directly.
🔹 3. Landmark Cases
🏛 Case 1: Abdul Karim v. State, 36 DLR (HCD) 1984
Focus: Mandatory reading of charge
Facts:
Accused was tried without the charges being fully read under Section 342.
Conviction was challenged on procedural grounds.
Held:
HCD held that reading charges under Section 342 is mandatory.
Non-compliance vitiates trial proceedings if accused is prejudiced.
Significance:
Reinforced that Section 342 protects accused from surprise.
Ensures fair trial principles are upheld.
🏛 Case 2: State v. Anwar Hossain, 42 DLR (HCD) 1990
Focus: Statement of accused under Section 342 cannot be evidence
Facts:
Court relied heavily on accused’s Section 342 statement to convict.
Held:
HCD clarified that statement under Section 342 is not substantive evidence.
Court can draw inferences, but conviction cannot solely rely on this statement.
Significance:
Ensures accused is not prejudiced by pre-evidence statements.
Reinforces distinction between Section 342 and Section 313 statements.
🏛 Case 3: Rahman v. State, 49 DLR (HCD) 1997
Focus: Partial denial or explanation
Facts:
Accused denied some charges and explained others under Section 342.
Trial court treated the explanation as admission.
Held:
HCD held that partial explanation does not amount to admission.
Court must carefully examine whether denial or explanation is being misinterpreted.
Significance:
Protects right of accused to clarify circumstances.
Prevents misuse of procedural safeguards.
🏛 Case 4: BLAST v. Bangladesh, 55 DLR (HCD) 2003
Focus: Section 342 and protection of vulnerable accused
Facts:
Under-trial accused, juveniles, and illiterate persons were examined without assistance of legal counsel under Section 342.
Held:
HCD emphasized that courts must ensure comprehension.
Illiterate or vulnerable accused must understand charges and implications.
Significance:
Highlights due process obligations in criminal trials.
Section 342 is a tool to prevent coercion and ensure informed response.
🏛 Case 5: State v. Kamal Uddin, 57 DLR (HCD) 2005
Focus: Opportunity to explain and fair trial
Facts:
Accused claimed denial of opportunity to give explanation under Section 342.
Held:
HCD quashed conviction, holding that fair trial includes proper examination of accused.
Court stressed that misreading or incomplete reading of charges violates Section 342.
Significance:
Reaffirms procedural safeguards.
Ensures accused can fully present their defense before evidence is recorded.
🔹 4. Summary of Principles
| Principle | Judicial Reference |
|---|---|
| Mandatory reading of charges | Abdul Karim v. State |
| Section 342 statement not substantive evidence | State v. Anwar Hossain |
| Partial explanation ≠ admission | Rahman v. State |
| Comprehension for vulnerable accused | BLAST v. Bangladesh, 2003 |
| Fair trial includes proper Section 342 examination | State v. Kamal Uddin |
🔹 5. Key Takeaways
Section 342 CrPC is a preliminary procedural safeguard for accused persons.
Courts have consistently emphasized mandatory reading of charges, opportunity to explain, and protection of vulnerable accused.
Statements under Section 342 cannot be used directly as evidence, but may guide inquiry.
Proper adherence ensures fair trial, prevents miscarriage of justice, and strengthens criminal procedure.
RELATED Blog
0 comments