Fair Trial

Concept of Fair Trial: A Case Study
(Project Report)
Submitted to
Mr. Sandeep K Suman
Faculty In-charge of Criminal Procedure Code
By
Yash Tiwari
B.A. LL.B (Hons.) Student
Semester - VII, Section - A, Roll No. 190
21.08.2017
Hidayatullah National Law University
Uparwara Post, Abhanpur, New Raipur - 493661 (C.G.)

Acknowledgments
I, Yash Tiwari, feel myself highly elated, as it gives me tremendous pleasure to come out with
work on the topic, “Fair Trial”.
I am thankful to my teacher, Mr. Sandeep K Suman, who gave me this topic. I am highly
obliged for his guidance in doing all sorts of researches, suggestions and discussions regarding
my project topic by devoting his precious time.
I thank to the HNLU for providing Computer, library facility. And last but not the least I thank
my friends and all those persons who have helped me in the completion of this project.
Yash Tiwari
Semester VII
Sec. A (Roll No. 190)
Concept of Fair Trial: A case study

2|Page
Declaration
I hereby declare that the project work entitled “Fair Trial” submitted to the Hidayatullah
National Law University, is a record of an original work done by me under the guidance of Mr.
Sandeep K Suman, Faculty Member, Hidayatullah National Law University, and this project
work has not performed the basis for the award of any Degree or diploma/ associate
ship/fellowship and similar project if any.
Yash Tiwari
Semester VII
Sec. A (Roll No. 190)

3|Page
Contents
Acknowledgments................................................................................................................................... 2
Declaration .............................................................................................................................................. 3
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 5
Aims & Objectives-: ................................................................................................................................. 6
Research Methodology-:......................................................................................................................... 6
Sources Of Data-: .................................................................................................................................... 6
Right to a Fair Trial- a human right ......................................................................................................... 7
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS: ............................................................................................................ 10
PROVISIONS UNDER CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE.............................................................................. 15
BASIC FAIR TRIAL CRITERIA ............................................................................................................... 15
Pre-Trial............................................................................................................................................. 18
Trial Stage.......................................................................................................................................... 19
Speedy Trials ..................................................................................................................................... 20
CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................................... 21
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................................................... 22
Books-: .............................................................................................................................................. 22
Internet source: ................................................................................................................................ 22

4|Page
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.

5|Page
Aims & Objectives-:
The aims and objectives of the project is to-
1) Know about the right to fair trial

2) Study the relevant provisions under CrPC
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.

6|Page
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. 108
2
Alfredsson, Gudmundur; Eide, Asbjorn (1999). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: a common
standard of achievement. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 225
3
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml
4
5
Alfredsson, Gudmundur; Eide, Asbjorn (1999). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: a common
standard of achievement. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. pp. 225–226.
7|Page
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
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
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
9
8|Page
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
11
9|Page
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
12
See,. R.V.Kelkar : outlines of criminal procedure, (1977) at p.33.
10 | P a g e
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.
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:
13
AIR 1962
14
1981 SCC, SC
15
AIR 1961
11 | P a g e
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
(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.
16
D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal, AIR1997SC610
12 | P a g e
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
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.
13 | P a g e
(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.

14 | P a g e
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.
17
K.N.C.Pillai (ed),R.V.Kelkar’s Criminal Procedure , at 336(5th edn.)
15 | P a g e
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, 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
16 | P a g e
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
18
See 41st report of the Law Commission of India
19
374-412 of CrPc, 1973.
17 | P a g e
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 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
20
154-176 of CrPc, 1973
18 | P a g e
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.
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
21
211-224 of CrPc, 1973.
19 | P a g e
clarity and certainty what the prosecution intends to prove against him and of which he has to
clear himself.
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.
20 | P a g e
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
21 | P a g e
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

22 | P a g e

Fair Trial

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Fair Trial

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Concept of Fair Trial: A Case Study

Mr. Sandeep K Suman

Faculty In-charge of Criminal Procedure Code

B.A. LL.B (Hons.) Student

Semester - VII, Section - A, Roll No. 190

Hidayatullah National Law University

Uparwara Post, Abhanpur, New Raipur - 493661 (C.G.)

Sec. A (Roll No. 190)

Concept of Fair Trial: A case study

Sec. A (Roll No. 190)

Concept of Fair Trial: A case study

Concept of Fair Trial: A case study

Concept of Fair Trial: A case study

The aims and objectives of the project is to-

1) Know about the right to fair trial

Concept of Fair Trial: A case study

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

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

Article 22(7) parliament may by law prescribe-

Concept of Fair Trial: A case study

BASIC FAIR TRIAL CRITERIA

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

A. Mode of Taking and Recording Evidence

Concept of Fair Trial: A case study

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi