Right to a Fair Trial

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY

CRIMINAL LAW PROJECT ON-:

“FAIR TRIAL IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM”

Submitted To: Father Peter Ladis

(Faculty of Criminal Law)

Submitted By: Ritika Rishi

Roll No:785

4th semester, 2nd year

FAIR TRIAL IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM1

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that Ritika Rishi, student of fourth semester B.A. LLB has successfully

accomplished the project under the guidance of Father Peter Ladis.

Remark:

Signature:


ACKNOWLEGEMENT

Its a fact that any research work prepared, compiled or formulated in isolation is

inexplicable to an extent . This research work, although prepared by me , is a culmination of

efforts of a lot of people .

Firstly , I would like to thank our teacher for the subject of Criminal Law , Father Peter

Ladis for giving such a topic for the project work which assisted me in acquiring further

knowledge in the field of Sociology would like to thank him for his valuable suggestions

towards the making of this project .

Thereafter, I would also like to express my gratitude towards our seniors who played a vital

role in the compilation of this project work.

I cannot ignore the contributions made by my classmates and friends towards the completion

of this project work And I would also like to express my gratitude towards the library staff

of my college which assisted me in acquiring the sources necessary for the compilation of

my project .

Last , but not the least , I would like to thank the Almighty for obvious reasons .

Ritika Rishi


TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTERIZATION:-

1) Introduction

2) Right to Fair Trial- a Human Right

3) Constitutional Provision

4) Provisions Under CrPC

5) Conclusion

BIbliography


INTRODUCTION

The concept of fair trial has been adopted by almost all the countries in their respected field of laws. The purpose behind the establishment of fair trial is to protect the common man from unfair means of any injustice and violation of fundamental right. The principals of natural justice are the ultimate basis of fair trial system. As far as country like India is concerned the concept of fair trial is envisaged under the constitutional law and other procedural law.

Everyone has an inbuilt right to be dealt fairly in a criminal trial. Denial of a fair trial is as much injustice to the accused and is to the victims and the society. The fair trial of criminal offence consists not only in technical observance of the frames and norms of law but also in recognition and just application of its principles in substance, to find out the truth and prevent miscarriage of justice.

Aims & Objectives-:

The aims and objectives of the project is to-

1) Know about the right to fair trial2) Study the relevant provisions under CrPC

Hypothesis-:

According to the researcher the hypothesis of the project is that, “even after so many provisions and rights related to fair trial only few people are able to face a fair trial.”

Research Methodology-:

The method of writing adopted is Doctrinal one including both descriptive and Analytical

Sources Of Data-:

The researcher has mainly relied upon primary as well as secondary sources e.g. Books, Articles, Internet websites.


Right to a Fair Trial- a human right

The right to fair trial is an essential right in all countries respecting the rule of law. A trial in

these countries that is deemed unfair will typically be restarted, or its verdict voided.

Various rights associated with a fair trial are explicitly proclaimed in Article 10 of the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Sixth Amendment to the United States

Constitution, and Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights, as well as

numerous other constitutions and declarations throughout the world. There is no binding

international law that defines what is or is not a fair trial, for example the right to a jury trial

and other important procedures vary from nation to nation.

The right to fair trial is very helpful in numerous declarations which represent customary

international law, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).1 Though the

UDHR enshrines some fair trial rights, such as the presumption of innocence until the

accused is proven guilty, in Articles 6, 7, 8 and 11,2 the key provision is Article 10 which

states that: "Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an

independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of

any criminal charge against him."3

Some years after the UDHR was adopted it was decided that the right to a fair trial should be

defined in more detail in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

The right to a fair trial is protected in Articles 14 and 16 of the ICCPR which is binding in

international law on the 72 states that have ratified it.4 Article 14(1) establishes the basic

right to a fair trial, article 14(2) provides for the presumption of innocence, and article 14(3)

sets out a list of minimum fair trial rights in criminal proceedings. Article 14(5) establishes

the right of a convicted person to have a higher court review the conviction or sentence, and

article 14(7) prohibits double jeopardy.5 1 Doebbler, Curtis (2006). Introduction to International Human Rights Law. CD Publishing. p. 1082 Alfredsson, Gudmundur; Eide, Asbjorn (1999). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: a common standard of achievement. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 2253 http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml4 Doebbler, Curtis (2006). Introduction to International Human Rights Law. CD Publishing. p. 1075 Alfredsson, Gudmundur; Eide, Asbjorn (1999). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: a common standard of achievement. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. pp. 225–226.


Article 14(1) states that: "All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the

determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at

law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and

impartial tribunal established by law. The press and the public may be excluded from all or

part of a trial for reasons of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society,

or when the interest of the private lives of the parties so requires, or to the extent strictly

necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would

prejudice the interests of justice; but any judgement rendered in a criminal case or in a suit at

law shall be made public except where the interest of juvenile persons otherwise requires or

the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes or the guardianship of children."6

The Geneva Conventions guarantee combatants the right not to be put on trial for fighting in

a war - unless they commit a war crime (a grave breach) or other crime (e.g., captured

behind enemy lines out of proper uniforms or insignia while carrying out espionage or

sabotage operations). Most held under the Geneva Conventions are not accused of a crime

and therefore it would be a war crime under the Geneva Conventions to give them a trial.

This protection against getting a trial is fully consistent with human rights law because

human rights law prohibits putting people on trial when there is no crime to try them for.

The Geneva Conventions however guarantee that anyone charged with a war crime or other

crime must get a fair trial.

The right to a fair trial is enshrined in articles 3, 7 and 26 of the African Charter on Human

and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR).7

The right to a fair trial is also enshrined in articles 5, 6 and 7 of the European Charter on

Human Rights and articles 2 to 4 of the 7th Protocol to the Charter.8

The right to a fair trial is furthermore enshrined in articles 3, 8, 9 and 10 of the American

Convention on Human Rights.9

6 "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights". Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.7 Doebbler, Curtis (2006). Introduction to International Human Rights Law. CD Publishing. p. 108.8 Doebbler, Curtis (2006). Introduction to International Human Rights Law. CD Publishing. p. 108.9 Doebbler, Curtis (2006). Introduction to International Human Rights Law. CD Publishing. p. 108.


The right to equality before the law is sometimes regarded as part of the rights to a fair trial.

It is typically guaranteed under a separate article in international human rights instruments.

The right entitles individuals to be recognised as subject, not as object, of the law.

International human rights law permits no derogation or exceptions to this human right.10

Closely related to the right to a fair trial is the prohibition on ex post facto law, or retroactive

law, which is enshrined in human rights instrument separately from the right to fair trial and

can not be limited by states according to the European Convention on Human Rights and the

American Convention on Human Rights11.

10 Doebbler, Curtis (2006). Introduction to International Human Rights Law. CD Publishing. p. 11011 Doebbler, Curtis (2006). Introduction to International Human Rights Law. CD Publishing. p. 108.


CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS:

Fair trial is based on principle of natural justice. Constitution of India also provide for fair

trial of the accused. It has been universally accepted in the present day of civilization that as

a human value no person accused of any offence should be punished unless he has been

given a fair trial and his guilt has been proved in such trial. The notion of fair trial cannot e

explained in absolute terms. Fairness is relative concept and therefore fairness in criminal

trial could be measured only in relation to the available time and resources and the

prevailing human values in the society. Article 21 provides the protection of life and

personal liberty. According to this article no person shall be deprived of his liberty except

according to procedure established by law. As a broad principle, it may be stated that the

liberty of a person should not be taken away without just cause. The detention of accused

person prior to or pending trial is likely to cause direct or indirect obstructions in preparation

of his defence and would not therefore be quite conductive to a fair trial.12 If the presence of

accused cannot be procured otherwise then he should by all means be arrested and detained.

Article 20 of the constitution provides protection in respect of conviction for offences.

According to this article no person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a

law in force at the time of the commission of the offence, nor be subjected to penalty greater

than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the

commission of the offence. It also provides protection from double jeopardy. It further

provides that no accused person shall be witness against himself. This is also safeguarded

under section 25 and 26 of Indian evidence Act by not accepting confession made before

police officer and police custody.

Art 22(1), says, "No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being

informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right

to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.". It embodies two

distinct rights - the right to be told of the grounds of arrest and the right to consult a legal

practioner of his choice. The second right of consulting a legal practitioner of his choice

actually depends on the first right of being told about the grounds of arrest. If the person

doesn't know why he is being arrested, he cannot consult a legal practioner meaningfully.

12 See,. R.V.Kelkar : outlines of criminal procedure, (1977) at p.33. FAIR TRIAL IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

9

In Harikishan vs State of Maharashtra13 , SC held that the grounds of arrest must be

communicated to the person in the language that he understands otherwise it would not

amount to sufficient compliance of the constitutional requirement.

Art 22(2) that gives a fundamental right to the arrested person that he must be produced

before a magistrate within 24 hours of arrest. It says, "Every person who is arrested and

detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of

twenty-four hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place

of arrest to the court of the magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody

beyond the said period without the authority of a magistrate."

In Khatri (II) vs State of Bihar14 has strongly urged upon the State and its police to ensure

that this constitutional and legal requirement of bringing an arrested person before a judicial

magistrate within 24 hours be scrupulously met. This is a healthy provision that allows

magistrates to keep a check on the police investigation. It is necessary that the magistrates

should try to enforce this requirement and when they find it disobeyed, they should come

heavily upon the police.

Further, in Sharifbai vs Abdul Razak15, SC held that if a police officer fails to produce an

arrested person before a magistrate within 24 hours, he shall be held guilty of wrongful

detention.

Article 22(4) provides that no law providing for preventive detention shall authorize the

detention of a person for a longer period than three months unless-

(a) An advisory body consisting of persons who are, or have been, or are qualified to be

appointed as, judges of high court has reported before the expiration of the said

period of three months that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for such detention:

Provided that nothing in this sub-clause shall authorize the detention of any person

beyond the maximum period prescribed by any law made by the parliament under

sub-clause (b) of clause 7; or

13 AIR 196214 1981 SCC, SC15 AIR 1961


(b) Such person is detained in accordance with the provisions of any law made by

parliament under sub-clause (a) and (b) of clause 7.

Section 22 (5) when any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law

providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be,

communicate to such person the ground on which the order has been made and shall afford

him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order.

Section 22 (6) provides that nothing in clause (5) shall require the authority making any such

order as is referred to in that clause to disclose facts which such authority considers to be

against the public interest to disclose.

Article 22(7) parliament may by law prescribe-

a) The circumstances under which, and the class or classes of cases in which, a person

may be detained for a period longer than three months under any law providing for

preventive detention without obtaining the opinion of an Advisory Board in

accordance with the provisions of sub clause (a) of clause ( 4 );

b) the maximum period for which any person may in any class or classes of cases be

detained under any law providing for preventive detention; and

c) the procedure to be followed by an Advisory Board in an inquiry under sub clause

(a) of clause ( 4 ) Right against Exploitation.

In D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal16 Supreme Court held the following requirements to

be followed in all cases of arrest or detention till legal provisions are made in that behalf as

preventive measures:

(1) The police personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the interrogation of the arrestee

should bear accurate, visible and clear identification and name tags with their designations.

The particulars of all such police personnel who handle interrogation of the arrestee must be

recorded in a register.

(2) That the police officer carrying out the arrest of the arrestee shall prepare a memo of

arrest at the time of arrest and such memo shall be attested by atleast one witness, who may

be either a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality from

16 D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal, AIR1997SC610FAIR TRIAL IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

11

where the arrest is made. It shall also be counter signed by the arrestee and shall contain the

time and date of arrest.

(3) A person who has been arrested or detained and is being held in custody in a police

station or interrogation center or other lock-up, shall be entitled to have one friend or relative

or other person known to him or having interest in his welfare being informed, as soon as

practicable, that he has been arrested and is being detained at the particular place, unless the

attesting witness of the memo of arrest is himself such a friend or a relative of the arrestee.

(4) The time, place of arrest and venue of custody of an arrestee must be notified by the

police where the next friend or relative of the arrestee lives outside the district or town

through the Legal Aid Organisation in the District and the police station of the area

concerned telegraphically within a period of 8 to 12 hours after the arrest.

(5) The person arrested must be made aware of this right to have someone informed of his

arrest or detention as soon as he is put under arrest or is detained.

(6) An entry must be made in the diary at the place of detention regarding the arrest of the

person which shall also disclose the name of the next friend of the person who has been

informed of the arrest and the names and particulars of the police officials in whose custody

the arrestee is.

(7) The arrestee should, where he so requests, be also examined at the time of his arrest and

major and minor injuries, if any present on his/her body, must be recorded at that time. The

"Inspection Memo" must be signed both by the arrestee and the police officer effecting the

arrest and its copy provided to the arrestee.

(8) The arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by a trained doctor every 48

hours during his detention in custody by a doctor on the panel of approved doctors appointed

by Director, Health Services of the concerned State or Union Territory. Director, Health

Services should prepare such a penal for all Tehsils and Districts as well.

(9) Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest, referred to above, should be

sent to the illaqa Magistrate for his record.

(10) The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation, though not

throughout the interrogation.


(11) A police control room should be provided at all district and state headquarters, where

information regarding the arrest and the place of custody of the arrestee shall be

communicated by the officer causing the arrest, within 12 hours of effecting the arrest and at

the police control room it should be displayed on a conspicuous notice board.


PROVISIONS UNDER CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE

The system adopted by the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred as the

Code) is the adversary system based on the accusatorial method. In adversarial system

responsibility for the production of evidence is placed on the opposing party that is

prosecutions with the judge acting as a neutral referee between the parties. By contrast, in

inquisitorial trial system responsibility for the production of evidence at trial is the job of the

trial judge and it is the trial judge who decides which witnesses will be called at trial and

who does most of the questioning of witnesses. The adversary system is more or less based

on the notion of reconciliation of public and private interests, that is public interest in

punishing the wrongdoer and prevents him to commit more crimes and private interest in

preventing the wrongful convictions and protect his life and personal liberty. This system of

criminal trial assumes that the state, on one hand, by using its investigative agencies and

government counsels will prosecute the wrongdoer who, on the other hand, will also take

recourse of best counsels to challenge and counter the evidences of the prosecution.17

But if we take a close look of the Code then we will find that there are some provisions

which negate the strict adherence of the adversarial trial system.

BASIC FAIR TRIAL CRITERIA

The standards against which a trial is to be assessed in terms of fairness are numerous,

complex, and constantly evolving. They may constitute binding obligations that are

included in human rights treaties to which the state is a party. But, they may also be found

in documents which, though not formally binding, can be taken to express the direction in

which the law is evolving.

Provisions as regard arrest are contained in section 41 to 60A of crpc, 1973. In this chapter

many of the provision relates to the fair trial. Section 4 provides that a police may arrest

without warrant hence he has reason to believe that offence has been committed by the

person and arrest is necessary as specified in this section. Section 41 –B provides that the

police shall inform the family member of the arrested person. Section 41-D provides that the

arrested person shall be entitle to meet an advocate of his choice during interrogation,

17 K.N.C.Pillai (ed),R.V.Kelkar’s Criminal Procedure , at 336(5th edn.)FAIR TRIAL IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

14

though not through out interrogation. Section 49 provides that no person shall be subjected

to more restrain than is necessary to prevent his escape. Section 50 of this code provides that

the accused must be informed of the full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or

all other grounds for such arrest. It further provides that if the offence is bailable one then

the accused must be informed of his right to furnish bail and he may arrange for sureties on

his behalf. Section 50A makes an obligation of person making the arrest to inform about the

arrest and place where the accused person is detained to the nominated person. Section 56

provides that the accused person shall be taken to the magistrateor officer incharge of a

police station ithout reasonable delay. Section 57 provides that the reasonable time should

be within 24 hours exclusive of the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to

the magistrate’s court.

Provisions as regard bail are contained in Sections 436-450 of Cr.P.C., 1973. The bail

provisions aim at securing the release of a person who has been put behind bars as an under

trial or charged with some bailable and non-bailable offences. The purpose is that a person

need not be kept in the police lock-ups without being charged with any offence under the

Criminal law. There are no hard and fast rules regarding grant or refusal of bail. Each case

has to be considered on its own merits. The matter always calls for judicious exercise of

discretion by the courts. Where the offence is of a serious nature the court has to decide the

question of grant of bail in the light of such considerations as the nature and seriousness of

the offence, the character of evidence, circumstances that are peculiar to the accused,

reasonable possibility of presence of the accused not being secured at the trial, the

reasonable apprehension of a witness being tampered with, the larger interest of the public

or such similar other considerations. In the bailable cases, the grant of bail is a matter of

course. It may be given either by the police officer in-charge of the police station having the

accused in his custody or by the court. The release may be ordered on the accused executing

a bond and even without surety. In non-bailable cases, the accused may be released on bail

either by the court or a police officer, but no bail can be granted where the accused appears

on reasonable grounds to be guilty of an offence punishable either with death or with

imprisonment for life. This rule does not apply to a person under 16 years of age, a woman,

or a sick or infirm person. No doubt, liberty of a person must be zealously safeguarded by

the court, nonetheless, when a person is accused of a serious offence like murder, and his

successive bail applications are rejected on merit there being prima-facie material, the

prosecution is entitled to place correct facts before the court; liberty of the accused on bail


should not be construed as the sole concern of the court. The Supreme Court of India has,

however, held that though a person accused of a bailable offence is entitled to be released on

bail pending his trial, if his conduct subsequent to his release is found to be prejudicial to a

fair trial, he forefeits his right to be released on bail and such forefeiture can be made

effective by invoking the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the

Cr.P.C.

Section 438 of Cr.P.C.,1973 provides a unique provision for grant of "anticipatory bail." the

necessity for granting anticipatory bail arises mainly because sometimes influential persons

tried to implicate their rivals in false cases for the purpose of disgracing or for other

purposes by getting detained in jails for some days. Apart . . . from false cases where there

are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to

abscond, or otherwise misuse his liberty while on bail, there seems no justification to require

him first to submit to custody, remain in prison for some days and then apply for bail." 18.

Appeal, Reference, Review and Revision

The criminal justice system provides measures for preferring appeal, reference, review or

revision in order to avoid miscarriage of justice.19 If the finding reached by the trial court is

based on plausible reasons or the trial court's findings cannot be said to be unreasonable, the

appellate court should be slow in disturbing the trial court's finding of fact even if it was

possible to reach a different conclusion on the record because the trial judge has the

advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses and the initial presumption of innocence in

favour of the accused is not weakened by his acquittal. The Constitution of India also

provides that an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court for any judgement,or final order of the

high court in a criminal proceeding, if the High Court certifies that the case involves a

substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. However, where the

High Court refuses to give such a certificate, the Supreme Court may, on being satisfied that

the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution,

grant special leave to appeal from such judgement, or final order or determination or

sentence. It further states that an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgement,

final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court, if the High Court (a) has on

appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to death or (b)

has withdrawn for trials before itself any case from any court subordinate to its authority and 18 See 41st report of the Law Commission of India19 374-412 of CrPc, 1973.


has on such trials convicted the accused person and sentenced him to death or (c) certifies

that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court.

Pre-Trial

It is the statutory right of the police to carry out the investigation of a crime before a

prosecution is launched, and it cannot be interfered with by the courts.20 It may be observed

that the functions of the judiciary and of the police are complimentary, not overlapping; the

court's function begins when a charge is preferred before it and not until then. The accused

person may be kept in the custody of the police for a period of 15 days, thus enabling the

police to complete the investigation of the crime. However, a total period of the custody may

be up to 60 days when the investigation relates to a serious offence or 90 days when the

investigation relates to an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or

imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years,and such period shall be construed judicial

custody and not police custody. If the police cannot complete the investigation within 90

days then the accused person shall be released on bail.

The investigation process begins on an information given to a police officer and such

information is known as the First Information Report. The First Information Report is an

important document in a criminal trial and may be put in evidence to support or contradict

the evidence of the person who gave the information. The objective of the First Information

Report is to set the criminal law in motion and from the point of view of the investigating

agency to obtain information about the alleged criminal activities so as to be able to take

suitable steps to trace and to bring to book the guilty.

The criminal trial process makes it clear that trial should be fair and as such it has been

emphasised that confession made to police shall be non-admissible; confession extracted by

torture or third degree method can be pleaded at trial. Confession as to the commission of an

offence must be voluntary and recorded before a Magistrate or a respectable person. The

Cr.P.C, and Indian Evidence Act a proprio vigro state that a confession made by an accused

person to a police officer is inadmissible in evidence; if a person in police custody desires to

make a confession he must do so in the presence of a Magistrate. A Magistrate shall record

the confession if he is satisfied that it is voluntary.

20 154-176 of CrPc, 1973FAIR TRIAL IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

17

An accused kept either in the custody of police or judicial custody has to be provided with

humane and hygienic living conditions during lock-ups. This is so because the accused is

presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty. Jail Manuals prescribe that there ought not be

overcrowdedness in the cells; the undertrials should be provided with recreational facilities.

Trial Stage

A criminal trial begins with the filing of a case. The Cr.P.C, states that "no court shall take

cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation and the period of

limitation shall be:

(a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only;

(b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one

year;

(c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year

but not exceeding three years;

(d) the period of limitation in relation to offences which are punishable with more severe

punishment shall be determined by the court if the offence is punishable with imprisonment

exceeding three years or severe punishments.

The object is to prevent the parties from filing cases after a long time as a result of which

material evidence may vanish and also to prevent the filing of vexations and belated

prosecutions.

Every trial begins with the charges and every charge shall state the offence with which the

accused is charged.21 The charge shall give the accused full notice of the offence charged

against him. The purpose of the charge is to tell the accused person as precisely and

concisely as possible of the matter with which he is charged and must convey to him with

sufficient clarity and certainty what the prosecution intends to prove against him and of

which he has to clear himself.

21 211-224 of CrPc, 1973.FAIR TRIAL IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

18

A criminal trial may take place either before a Magistrate or Court of Sessions as the nature

of the case may be.22

A. Mode of Taking and Recording Evidence

It is obligatory that evidence for prosecution and defence should be taken in the presence of

the accused.23 A trial is vitiated by failure to examine the witnesses in the presence of the

accused; mere cross examination in the presence of the accused is not sufficient.

Speedy Trials

It is imperative that every criminal trial should be completed speedily, expeditiously and

efficiently. The Supreme Court of India in August 1996 has expressed that the trial court

should not waste its time when it is fairly satisfied that there is no prospect of the case

ending in conviction. If the trial court judge is almost certain that the trial would only be an

exercise in futility or a sheer waste of time, it is advisable to truncate or snip the proceedings

at the stage of framing the charge under relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C., and discharge the

accused.

Though it is imperative to complete the trial speedily, expeditiously and efficiently yet there

are irritations with the criminal trial process during pre-trial as well as trial stages. For

instance, the police which are to complete the investigation of crime within the prescribed

time limits consume much more time than prescribed by law. This results in the languishing

of the undertrials in jails for a longer period than the period of the conviction. The adversary

procedure is also responsible for the delayed trials and there are studies which tell that delay

is a riddle wrapped in mystery inside an enigma. Indecisiveness is the cause of both delay

and unpleasantness. It could be avoided if detention on false grounds is eased; adjournments

just on demands are discouraged; strike and cessation by an advocate is given a full stop.

22 225-265 of CrPc, 1973.23 272-299 of CrPc, 1973.


CONCLUSION

One Principal object of criminal law is to protect society by punishing the offenders.

However, justice and fair play require that no one be punished without a fair trial. A person

might be under a thick cloud of suspicion of guilt, he might have been even caught red-

handed, and yet he is not to be punished unless and until he is tried and adjudged to be guilty

by a competent court. In the administration of justice it is of prime importance that justice

should not only be done but must also appear to have been done. Further, it is one of the

cardinal principles of criminal law that everyone is presumed to be innocence unless his

guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt in a trial before a impartial and competent court.

Therefor it becomes absolutely necessary that every person accused of crime is brought

before the court for trial and that all the evidence appearing against him is made available to

the court for deciding as to his guilt or innocence.

After so many provisions and laws people are still not having a fair trial. In order to have

adequate insights into fair trial functionally rather than structurally it is imperative to have

an in-depth study of trial courts. Such a study would dispel the complaint against the judicial

system of the country. As such complaints are based on facts that, "higher courts are right

because they are superior, not superior because they are right." The trial judge, in fact,

handles the bulk of judicial business. It may however, be not conceived that the justices do

not want the people to understand the judicial function; unfortunately, there are relatively

few people to understand, interpret and explain the court's role in wider terms. In a sense

people know less about the case than they do about the Parliament or the political parties.

Trial judges handle the bulk of judicial business because they preside over trials among

other things including management of case processing, approval of plea bargaining,

supervision of the settlement process, monitoring remedial decrees--they as such experience

the drama of the adversary process. This inevitably influences judicial decision-making and

behaviour. A trial judge is not a mechanical scale or computer but is a human being. So the

trial judges vary in their respective qualities of intelligence, perspective, attentiveness and

other mental and emotional characteristics of operation while they are listening to and

observing witnesses. Fatigue of the trial judge, that is, after how many cases the trial judge

cannot function at ease and the cases heard and tried in fatigue may hamper or affect the fair


trial, may be one assumption amongst others to make an in-depth study of trial courts in

order to have an assessment of fair trial in criminal proceedings that is functional.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books-:

R.V.Kelkar, “criminal procedure” 3rd edition, 1993

Ratanlal Dhirajlal, “criminal procedure”, 3rd edition, 1998

Chaudhary , “criminal procedure”, 3rd edition, 1995

Dr. N.V. Paranjape, The Code of Criminal Procedure,2nd Edition, Central Law

Agency, Allahabad.

S.N.Misra, The Code of Criminal Procedure,14th Edition, Central Law Publication,

Allahabad

The code of criminal procedure code, 1973

The constitution of India

Internet source:

http://www.ksl.edu.np/cpanel/pics/concept_of_fair_trial_awani.pdf

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/fair_trial.pdf

www.humanrights.coe.int/Intro/eng/GENERAL/trial.htm


http://www.humanrights.coe.int/Intro/eng/GENERAL/trial.htm

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/fair_trial.pdf

http://www.ksl.edu.np/cpanel/pics/concept_of_fair_trial_awani.pdf

Right to a Fair Trial

Documents

Transcript of Right to a Fair Trial