Power to examine accused
Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with power to examine accused. 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; The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(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.
Section 351, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 313 Power to examine the accused Text carried over almost unchanged 93%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Reena Hazarika v. State of Assam
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 313, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgement of Main Case order-5.pdf 2018-10-31 (not same-date order-6 ROP). Nariman/Navin Sinha, Crl A 1330/2018. A s.313 CrPC statement is a constitutional incident of a fair trial; the court must consider the accused's explanation on probabilities, especially in a circumstantial-evidence murder case. Failure to do so vitiates the conviction. Map CrPC 313 and successor BNSS 351.
On this section: Successor of CrPC 313 (mapping.csv near-identical). The duty to consider the accused's statement carries to BNSS 351.
-
The State of Maharashtra vs Purshottam Dashrath Borate
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 313, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The High Court's commutation of death sentences to thirty-five years imprisonment is upheld as a proper exercise of judicial discretion considering the circumstances of the case. All State Governments and Union Territories must establish dedicated cells for processing mercy petitions with strict timelines, proper documentation requirements, and coordination between prison authorities, police, and government departments. Before issuing execution warrants, Sessions Courts must provide notice to convicts, ensure legal aid is available for challenging warrants, and maintain a mandatory fifteen-day gap between warrant receipt and execution date.
On this section: Statements of convicts under Section 313 CrPC to be included in mercy petition documentation with English translation
-
Gurcharan Singh vs State of Punjab
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 313, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The essential ingredients of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC are: (1) the existence of a live link or nexus between the abetment and the suicide; (2) the active role of instigation or aiding on the part of the accused; (3) the intention to aid or instigate the commission of suicide; (4) the absence of any severing of these constituents. Remoteness of culpable acts or omissions rooted in the intention of the accused to actualize the suicide falls short of the offense of abetment. Contiguity, continuity, culpability, and complicity of indictable acts or omission are the concomitant indices of abetment. Mere domestic discord, absence of support, or property disputes, without active sustained incitement with direct causative content, cannot sustain a conviction for abetment of suicide. The burden lies on the prosecution to prove affirmatively that the accused's conduct was the direct, proximate, and compelling cause for the victim's suicide, and if the victim appears hypersensitive to ordinary domestic discord not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual to commit suicide, the accused cannot be held guilty. The court must be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances to determine whether cruelty meted out to the victim in fact induced the suicide, and the absence of complaints to police, civil suits, or evidence of specific threats substantially weakens the prosecution's case.
On this section: Referenced regarding the statements recorded from the accused during trial. The accused's denial of charges and defense witnesses' testimony were considered in assessing guilt.
-
Ashwani Kumar Saxena vs State of M. P
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 313, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a claim of juvenility is raised before any court, the court must conduct a simplified inquiry under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 read with Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007, following a strict hierarchical order of evidence: (1) Matriculation or equivalent certificates, (2) Date of birth certificate from school first attended (other than play school), (3) Birth certificate from corporation, municipal authority, or panchayat, or (4) Medical opinion only in the absence of the foregoing. Once any of the first three categories of documents is produced and not controverted, the court shall accept them as conclusive proof of age and pass a finding of juvenility if the age is below 18 years on the date of commission of the offence. The court shall not conduct investigative or trial-like inquiries, shall not require witnesses to be examined merely because they made entries in documents, shall not conduct medical tests unless the documents are found to be fabricated or manipulated, and shall complete the age determination within 30 days. A school admission register produced by the school principal is relevant and conclusive evidence of date of birth when consistently entered and not controverted, and courts shall not second-guess such entries by conducting fishing inquiries or requiring corroborating evidence such as horoscopes. The date relevant for determining juvenility is the date of commission of the alleged offence, and once established, the juvenile is entitled to all benefits under the Juvenile Justice Act regardless of when the claim is raised.
On this section: Referenced in the context of stage at which juvenility claim can be raised, as in Anil Agarwal case.
-
Naveen @ Ajay vs The State of Madhya Pradesh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 313, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A criminal trial for serious offences including rape and murder cannot be conducted in a hasty manner over 15 days without providing adequate time to the legal aid counsel to prepare the defence. The principle of fair trial, which is a fundamental right under the Constitution, requires that the accused be afforded a real and meaningful opportunity to defend himself through competent counsel with sufficient preparation time. The trial court has a duty to ensure compliance with fair trial principles by granting adequate time to defence counsel, which should normally be a minimum of 7 days but may be more depending on circumstances. Forensic evidence including DNA reports must be properly proved through examination of expert witnesses who prepared the reports, and the accused must be given opportunity to cross-examine such experts. A trial conducted in violation of these principles is void and the conviction and sentence must be set aside with the matter remitted for de novo trial.
On this section: Examination of accused; Court held that accused must be given adequate opportunity to prepare for examination and present defence witnesses
-
Harbhajan Singh vs The State of Haryana Department of Home Home Secretary
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 313, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The conviction of a vehicle owner under Section 25 of the NDPS Act cannot be legally sustained unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the vehicle was used for commission of the offence with the knowledge and consent of the owner. The burden lies on the prosecution to establish foundational facts proving the owner's knowledge and consent. The presumption under Section 35 of the NDPS Act can only be invoked after the prosecution has discharged its initial burden of proving foundational facts. Mere registration of a vehicle in the name of a person is insufficient to establish liability under Section 25 NDPS Act without proof of knowledge and consent. The burden of proof cannot be shifted to the accused merely on the basis of ownership without the prosecution first establishing the essential elements of the offence.
On this section: Provides for statement of accused. Court noted that appellant's statement under this section denying all suggestions was on record but prosecution failed to rebut it with material evidence.
-
Chherturam @ Chainu vs The State of Chhattisgarh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 313, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The nature, number, and location of injuries inflicted during a sudden fight, even without premeditation, can demonstrate cruelty and brutality such that Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC does not apply. When injuries are inflicted on vital body parts in a merciless manner with repeated blows that make survival impossible, the act constitutes murder under Section 302 IPC, and intoxication does not provide a defense under Section 86 IPC. The conviction for murder must be upheld despite the absence of prior premeditation when the factual circumstances demonstrate an endeavor to end the victim's life through brutal and cruel means.
On this section: Statement of accused in defense during trial
-
Ghulam Hassan Beigh vs Mohammad Maqbool Magrey
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 313, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of framing charges under Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the trial court must apply its judicial mind and sift the evidence placed before it by the prosecution for the limited purpose of determining whether a prima facie case has been made out. The court cannot conduct a mini-trial or rely solely on post-mortem reports to determine the nexus between alleged assault and death. The post-mortem report is not substantive evidence but merely a previous statement of the doctor; only the doctor's oral testimony in court constitutes substantive evidence. Whether the cause of death has any nexus with the alleged assault can only be determined after recording oral evidence of eye witnesses and the medical officer as an expert witness. The determination of whether a case falls under Section 302 IPC (murder) or Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) must be made only after evaluation of the entire oral evidence led by both prosecution and defence at the end of the trial, not at the charge-framing stage. If a prima facie case is made out based on the materials placed by the prosecution, even if those materials give rise to strong suspicion, the charge should be framed in accordance with the case put up by the prosecution, and the accused should be given the opportunity to defend against the higher charge at trial.
On this section: Examination of accused - the Court noted that incriminating material and evidence are put to accused under this section during trial
-
N. Raghavender vs State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Cbi Cbi
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 313, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for conclusive proof in criminal convictions. The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by producing best evidence. The non-examination of a key witness who is the best person to clarify disputed facts is fatal to the prosecution case. Mere departmental misconduct, even if gross, does not constitute criminal breach of trust, cheating, or falsification of accounts unless the essential ingredients of these offences are proved beyond reasonable doubt. The absence of financial loss to the bank and the absence of any complaint from the affected party are material factors in determining criminal liability. Once entrustment of property is established, the burden shifts to the accused to prove that the property was dealt with in a legally and contractually acceptable manner, but this burden must be discharged in the context of the prosecution's failure to produce best evidence.
On this section: Provides for examination of accused; Court held that circumstances not put to accused during Section 313 examination must be excluded from consideration as accused did not have opportunity to explain them
-
Rohtas vs The State of Haryana Home Department Home Secretary
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 313, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused is charged under Sections 148 and 149 IPC as part of an unlawful assembly, but some members of the assembly are acquitted during trial such that the number falls below five, the conviction under Sections 148 and 149 cannot be sustained. However, the accused can be individually convicted under Section 307 IPC (or other applicable provisions) if the evidence establishes that his individual act caused the injury or death, provided that: (1) the facts to be proved and evidence to be adduced would be substantially the same as under the group charge; (2) the accused was expressly confronted with his specific role in the offence; and (3) no prejudice is caused to the accused by the charge alteration. Additionally, the credibility of eyewitness testimony from closely related family members (such as the victim's brother) can be relied upon in violent crime cases if the testimony is consistent, detailed, corroborated by medical evidence, and the gravity of injuries makes false implication inconceivable.
On this section: Statement of accused. Court noted that the appellants were expressly confronted with their specific role in the offence, establishing that they were not prejudiced by any charge alteration.
-
Paul vs The State of Kerala
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 313, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an act amounts to culpable homicide and falls within any of the four clauses of Section 300 IPC, and the accused fails to establish that the case falls within any of the five exceptions enumerated in Section 300 IPC, the offence constitutes murder punishable under Section 302 IPC. The burden on the accused to prove exceptions is by preponderance of probability, but the prosecution burden to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt never shifts. An accused cannot escape the consequences of an act attracting the ingredients of murder by merely pointing to Section 304 IPC. The fact that a false case is set up by the accused does not deprive him of the right to establish that the case falls within exceptions to murder, but such exceptions must be supported by evidence on record. In cases of throttling resulting in death, the presence of injuries on the neck and other parts of the body, combined with the absence of credible explanation from the accused regarding what transpired in the privacy of the bedroom, establishes murder beyond reasonable doubt.
On this section: Examination of the accused; court emphasized the importance of proper examination and noted that statements made under this section have evidentiary value even if they contain inculpatory admissions
-
Gandi Doddabasappa @ Gandhi Basavaraj vs State of Karnataka
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 313, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A conviction for murder under Section 302 Indian Penal Code can be sustained on the basis of sole eyewitness testimony when such testimony is found to be entirely reliable and truthful, is corroborated by circumstantial evidence (such as recovery of the murder weapon with matching forensic evidence), and when the accused had clear motive for the crime. In honour-based homicides involving murder of a child by a parent due to the child's marriage into a different caste, none of the exceptions to Section 300 IPC apply, and therefore the offence constitutes murder punishable under Section 302, not culpable homicide under Section 304. The High Court was justified in interfering with the trial court's acquittal when the trial court's reasoning for rejecting eyewitness evidence was founded on flimsy grounds, and reappreciation of evidence reveals that a different and more reasonable view is possible from the totality of circumstances.
On this section: Right of accused to make statement during trial. The appellant's statement was recorded as complete denial and claim of false implication, which did not provide any valid defence.
-
Ajay Kr. Ghoshal Etc vs State of Bihar
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 313, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The power to order retrial under Section 386(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an exceptional power to be exercised only when the appellate court is satisfied that: (a) the trial was undertaken by a court lacking jurisdiction, or (b) the trial was vitiated by serious illegality or irregularity occasioning failure of justice, or (c) there was a misconception of the nature of proceedings such that there was no real trial. Mere procedural lapses or irregularities in investigation or conduct of trial, without demonstrable miscarriage of justice, are insufficient to order retrial. The appellate court must independently evaluate evidence and arrive at its own conclusions on guilt or innocence rather than remitting to trial court merely because procedural defects exist. De novo trial is a last resort remedy reserved for exceptional circumstances and must be guided by the demand of justice, balancing the accused's right to fair and speedy trial against societal interest in prosecution of serious crimes.
On this section: Examination of accused - discussed in context of whether accused must be questioned on incriminating evidence and prejudice resulting from omission
-
State of Assam vs Faruk Ahmed
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 313, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In prosecutions for child marriage and sexual assault of minors under the POCSO Act and Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, the prosecution bears the burden of establishing the victim's age at the time of marriage through reliable documentary evidence such as birth certificates and marriage documents. Oral evidence alone, without corroborating documentary proof, is insufficient to establish that a marriage was a child marriage or that sexual assault occurred on a minor. The absence of such documentary evidence, despite the prosecution's duty to produce it, results in acquittal as the charges cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
On this section: Statement of Accused - The court recorded the statement of the accused under this section, wherein all incriminating circumstances were put to the accused, and he pleaded his innocence.
-
State of Assam vs Faruk Ahmed
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 313, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases. When the evidence presented by the prosecution fails to establish the charges with the requisite degree of certainty, the accused must be acquitted and discharged, regardless of the gravity of the allegations.
On this section: Recording of the accused's statement; the court followed this procedure before pronouncing judgment
-
State of Haryana vs Shakir @ Shahrukh, S/o- Jamil
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 313, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the prosecution case rests solely on the statements of official police witnesses without any independent corroborating witnesses, the evidence must be subjected to close scrutiny. The prosecution must establish both the actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind) of the accused, along with the causal connection between the alleged criminal acts and the accused person. Mere recovery of contraband articles does not establish the accused's involvement unless the prosecution proves the accused's direct participation in the offence. Procedural compliance, particularly the mandatory requirement to associate independent witnesses during recovery under Section 100(4) Cr.P.C., is essential for the credibility of the prosecution case. In the absence of such compliance and independent corroboration, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt and acquittal.
On this section: Recording of statement of accused person; accused denied allegations and opted to lead defence evidence
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 351
What have the courts held on Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
Reena Hazarika v. State of Assam (31 Oct 2018) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 313, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Successor of CrPC 313 (mapping.csv near-identical). The duty to consider the accused's statement carries to BNSS 351. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 13 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2012 to 2026.
How do I find court cases under Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNSS 351, section 351 BNSS, section 351 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. People searching for it also type bnss 351(2) and bnss 351(3). Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Reena Hazarika v. State of Assam (31 Oct 2018).
What should I read with Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
It carries forward CrPC 313 (Power to examine the accused), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, cited as BNSS 351, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 359. Compounding of offences1355 words
- 187. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours1122 words
- 2. Definitions956 words
- 243. Trial for more than one offence930 words
- 35. When police may arrest without warrant881 words
- 480. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence823 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.