Comparative Study Of Criminal Law With Uk And Us Frameworks
🔹 Comparative Study of Criminal Law: India vs UK vs USA
✅ Introduction
Criminal law across India, UK, and the US shares common origins (especially India and UK due to colonial history) but differs in legal philosophy, procedure, and application.
| Aspect | India | United Kingdom (UK) | United States (US) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal System | Common Law + Codified | Common Law (mostly uncodified) | Common Law + Federal System |
| Constitution | Written | Unwritten | Written |
| Criminal Code | Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) | No single code; Offences Act etc. | Model Penal Code + State Codes |
| Trial Type | Adversarial | Adversarial | Adversarial |
| Jury System | Abolished | Rarely used | Widely used (especially criminal trials) |
| Prosecutor's Role | Public Prosecutor | Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) | District/State/Federal Prosecutors |
| Police Power | Controlled under CrPC | Regulated by Police & Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) | Regulated by Constitution + Statutes |
🔹 Key Doctrines & Principles Compared
| Principle | India | UK | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Presumption of Innocence | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Right to Silence | Limited in practice | Protected under PACE | Guaranteed under 5th Amendment |
| Double Jeopardy Protection | Article 20(2) Constitution | Common Law + Statutory | 5th Amendment |
| Burden of Proof | Prosecution | Prosecution | Prosecution |
| Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt | Yes | Yes | Yes |
🔹 Key Comparative Case Laws
✅ 1. India: K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1962 AIR 605)
Facts:
Naval officer K.M. Nanavati shot his wife's lover. The case became famous for being one of the last jury trials in India.
Held:
The Supreme Court found Nanavati guilty of murder, overruling the jury’s acquittal. It also criticized the jury system's susceptibility to media and public influence.
Impact:
Led to abolition of jury trials in India. Established strong precedent on murder vs culpable homicide.
Comparison:
While the US and UK retained jury trials in serious cases, India moved to a judge-led system to ensure impartiality.
✅ 2. UK: R v. Brown (1993) 2 All ER 75
Facts:
A group of men engaged in consensual sadomasochistic acts, but were prosecuted for assault.
Held:
The House of Lords held that consent is not a valid defence to actual bodily harm or greater, even if done privately.
Significance:
Reaffirmed limits on personal autonomy in criminal law. Public interest overrides private consent when serious harm is caused.
Comparison with India/US:
In India and the US, courts might also deny consent as a defence in cases involving grievous hurt, depending on circumstances.
✅ 3. US: Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Facts:
Ernesto Miranda was arrested and confessed during police interrogation without being informed of his right to counsel.
Held:
The US Supreme Court ruled that the confession was inadmissible. Established the "Miranda Rights": police must inform suspects of their rights (to silence and legal counsel).
Significance:
Fundamental to due process and fair trial under the Fifth Amendment.
Comparison:
India provides similar protection under Article 20(3) (right against self-incrimination), but Miranda-style warnings are not mandatory.
✅ 4. India: Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263
Facts:
The use of narco-analysis and brain mapping was challenged on the grounds of self-incrimination.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that forcible use of these techniques violates Article 20(3) and the right to privacy under Article 21.
Significance:
Reaffirmed India’s protection against self-incrimination, in line with US jurisprudence (Miranda).
✅ 5. UK: Woolmington v. DPP (1935) AC 462
Facts:
A man accidentally shot his wife while trying to scare her, claiming it was unintentional.
Held:
The House of Lords ruled that the prosecution must prove the defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and burden never shifts unless specified by law.
Significance:
This case entrenched the presumption of innocence in UK law.
Comparison:
Adopted similarly in India (e.g., Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh) and US (constitutional right).
✅ 6. US: Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)
Facts:
Clarence Gideon was denied a court-appointed attorney during his trial for a felony.
Held:
The US Supreme Court ruled that legal counsel is a fundamental right under the Sixth Amendment and must be provided in all serious criminal cases.
Impact:
Led to public defender systems across US states.
Comparison:
India guarantees free legal aid under Article 39A and Section 304 of CrPC.
✅ 7. India: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248
Facts:
Passport of a journalist was revoked without explanation.
Held:
The SC held that procedure under Article 21 must be "just, fair, and reasonable".
Significance:
Expanded the scope of due process, inspired by US constitutional jurisprudence.
✅ 8. UK: R v. Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273 DC
Facts:
Shipwreck survivors killed and ate a boy to survive.
Held:
Necessity was not a defence to murder. They were convicted.
Significance:
Established the moral and legal limits of necessity as a defence in criminal law.
Comparison:
Indian and US courts also limit necessity as a defence in homicide cases.
🔹 Key Differences in Criminal Procedures
| Topic | India | UK | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confession to Police | Not admissible (Sec 25, Evidence Act) | Admissible under PACE with safeguards | Admissible only after Miranda warning |
| Jury Trial | Abolished | Rare in criminal cases | Common in felony trials |
| Bail | Relatively restrictive (esp. UAPA, NDPS) | Presumption of bail unless risky | Bail often allowed; varies by state & offence |
| Police Powers | Regulated by CrPC | PACE Act regulates search & arrest | Constitution + Statutes regulate |
| Double Jeopardy | Article 20(2), once tried cannot be tried again | Common Law principle | 5th Amendment protection |
🔹 Conclusion
While India, the UK, and the US share common legal ancestry, they differ in key procedural and constitutional aspects:
India retains a codified, judge-led system with a strong role for the state in prosecution and weaker jury participation.
UK has an evolving common law system with limited jury use and a focus on CPS-led prosecutions.
US strongly emphasizes individual constitutional rights, jury trials, and a federalized justice system with broad prosecutorial discretion.
Each system offers lessons: India has adopted procedural rigor, the UK blends tradition with reform, and the US champions individual liberties.
RELATED Blog
comments