Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Criminal Justice System in India
Criminal Justice System in India
26.06.2012
Criminal Justice System in India
- Dr Brahm A. Agrawal,
Law Secretary,
Government of India
One more point which the hon’ble Minister asked me to speak about was
abolition of the committal proceedings in sessions trials. Yes, when our
new Code of Criminal procedure was enacted in 1973, with a view to
speeding up disposal of criminal cases, the preliminary inquiry which
used to precede the trial by a Court of Session, otherwise known as
committal proceedings, was abolished as it was felt that it did not serve
2
any useful purpose and had been the cause of considerable delay in trial
of offences.
Now, my presentation:
It may be noted that the fundamental rights under the above articles are
guaranteed to all persons, not merely citizens.
Under the Indian Penal Code 1860, criminal responsibility starts at the
age of seven. Further, any act or omission by a child between seven and
12 years of age would not be an offence if it is proved that the child had
not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and
consequences of his or her conduct on the occasion in question. Children
between 12 and 18 years of age are responsible for their criminal acts, but
are not treated as adults. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act 2000 provides for a special approach towards prevention
and treatment of juvenile delinquency. The juvenile justice system
follows the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989. Also, where
a person by reason of unsoundness of mind is incapable of knowing the
nature of his act, the same would not be an offence.
The Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, along with
parts of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, constitute the essence of Indian
criminal law. A large number of special and local laws take care of
various other antisocial activities. Members of the armed forces face trial
for offences by a Court Martial under special Acts owing to their special
requirements.
4
out justice and to convict the guilty and protect the innocent. It is a search
for the truth. Denial of a fair trial is as much injustice to the accused as is
to the victim and the society. The court has a participatory role in a trial.
It is not a mere tape recorder to record whatever is being stated by the
witnesses. It plays an active role with a view to elicit all necessary
materials and it controls the proceedings effectively so that the ultimate
objective, i.e. truth is achieved. The common law rule “Justice should not
only be done, it should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done” is
followed conspicuously.
may file an application in the court in which the trial is pending. The
court shall examine the accused in camera to satisfy itself that the
application has been filed voluntarily, thereafter allow time to the public
prosecutor or the complainant, as the case may be, and the accused to
work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case and where a
satisfactory disposition has been worked out, dispose of the case and
deliver its judgment. The court awards compensation to the victim as per
the disposition and may release the accused on probation of good conduct
or after admonition.
India has also made agreements with many countries for transfer of
sentenced persons detained in prison to enable them to serve their
sentence in their own country.
Subject to the fact that room for improvement is always there, the
criminal justice system in India is one of the best in the world.
Kawas Maneckshaw Nanavati (a senior naval officer) shot dead his wife
Sylvia’s paramour in 1959. There was a jury trial. He was acquitted with
a verdict of 8:1. The Sessions Judge was dissatisfied and referred the case
to the High Court, which reversed the verdict and sentenced Nanavati to
life imprisonment and this was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1961.
8
Nanavati’s case was extensively reported in the media and it was felt that
the jury was influenced by publicity, jury trial was susceptible to media
and public influence, and results of its deliberation were not in the
interests of justice. Jurors were inexperienced persons and biased too.
Time-line of Nanavati’s case (i.e. crime was done in 1959 and the verdict
came in 1961) was also considered to be impossible for adjudication, in
the light of the fact that the backlog was too large and the pace too slow.
The Law Commission said that the system of trial by jury had the
advantage of associating the public with the administration of criminal
justice, but the system must be judged mainly by the extent to which it
worked efficiently; its main purpose was the dispensation of justice and it
failed to serve that purpose. The test must be a “fairness of trial” –
independent, impartial and just – and how far, in its practical working, the
system ensures justice in its true sense. Judged by this test, the jury
system had failed. There were numerous cases of miscarriage of justice.
The general complaint was that jurymen were “open to approach” and did
not give a fair verdict. There were a number of persons who made it
almost a profession to get themselves chosen as jurors for the sake of the
remuneration and also the illegal gratification which some of them
expected to get. This evil of unscrupulous professional jurors rendered
trial by jury almost a mockery and seriously affected the administration
of criminal justice.
9
Thank you.