Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Section 351
Power to examine accused
(1) In every inquiry or trial, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court—
(a) may at any stage, without previously warning the accused put such questions to him as the Court considers necessary;
(b) shall, after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence, question him generally on the case: Provided that in a summons case, where the Court has dispensed with the personal attendance of the accused, it may also dispense with his examination under clause (b).
(2) No oath shall be administered to the accused when he is examined under sub-section (1).
(3) The accused shall not render himself liable to punishment by refusing to answer such questions, or by giving false answers to them.
(4) The answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial, and put in evidence for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence which such answers may tend to show he has committed.
(5) The Court may take help of Prosecutor and Defence Counsel in preparing relevant questions which are to be put to the accused and the Court may permit filing of written statement by the accused as sufficient compliance of this section.
Why this exists
This provision embodies the principle that an accused should get a direct, personal chance to explain incriminating circumstances in their own words before the court decides the case, while protecting them from being coerced into self-incrimination since no oath is taken and refusal or false answers are not separately punishable. It balances the search for truth against the constitutional protection against forced self-incrimination.
How courts read it
Under the equivalent provision in the earlier Code of Criminal Procedure, courts have repeatedly held that this examination of the accused is a valuable opportunity, not a mere formality, meant to give the accused a fair chance to explain incriminating evidence, and failure to properly put all material circumstances to the accused for their explanation can vitiate a conviction if it causes real prejudice.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: The accused must answer every question the judge asks during this examination.
Fact: The law explicitly says the accused cannot be punished for refusing to answer or for giving false answers to these questions, though the court can still weigh the response in reaching its decision.