Additional questions to accused after his statement under section 342 Cr.P.C.
S.342 CrPC has two parts; first part authorizes the Court to ask questions at any stage of inquiry or trial without warning the accused and second part relates to questioning the accused generally after close of prosecution evidence. Though in stricto senso no express provision is available for recording of statement more than once in second part of the section 342 Cr.P.C., yet first part authorizes to ask as many questions at any time as the court desires and wish of the court is obviously regulated not by whims but by the principle that any piece of evidence appearing against accused needs his reply or clarification before it is used against him, and it is the base line principle of natural justice borrowed from the maxim “Audi Alterum Partem”, no one should be condemned unheard.
It is trite that evidence not put to the accused in his statement u/s 342 Cr.P.C cannot be used against him for recording any observation making part of main platform which is set to erect a guilt-edifice against him. Appellate courts usually remand the case on the deficiency of questions put to accused in his statement u/s 342 Cr. P.C. on the principle that trial court before relying upon any evidence should have sought explanation of accused about it, which indirectly a message that if any evidence is skipped or lost sight of putting to the accused but is essential to be relied upon, the trial court before proceeding further must put some additional questions in this respect which is in line with first part of section 342 Cr.P.C. authorizing the court to ask question at any stage of the proceedings without warning him.
The allegation of filling lacune is usually attributed to the litigating parties on whose applications court sometimes misread the situation but it cannot be levelled against the court which always looks for doing complete justice and in this respect is authorized to use its inquisitorial pocket in an adversarial system like in our system enumerated in section 94, 265-F, 540, 539-B of Cr.P.C. and Article 158 & 161 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. So is the case of power under first part of section 342 Cr.P.C.
Trial court is authorized to dilate upon all pieces of evidence for a reply of accused to be considered later in order to appreciate the evidence of prosecution, yet recording of statement u/s 342 Cr.P.C. afresh in this case is not desirable rather court can put additional questions encompassing the evidence appearing against him and is intended to be used by the court for recording any observation relating to guilt or otherwise of the accused and this arrangement is in consonance with the spirit of first part of section 342 Cr.P.C.
Crl. Appeal-719-17
TOHEED ABBAS VS
STATE ETC
Mr. Justice Muhammad Amjad Rafiq
04-10-2022
2022 LHC 6964
0 Comments