Trial In Absentia Under Crpc
What is Trial in Absentia?
Trial in absentia means conducting the trial of an accused without his/her physical presence in the court.
Generally, the presence of the accused is considered essential to ensure a fair trial and to uphold the principles of natural justice.
However, there are exceptions where the trial may proceed in the absence of the accused.
Relevant Provisions in the CrPC
Section 317 CrPC deals specifically with the trial of an accused person in his absence.
It provides the conditions under which a trial may continue even if the accused is absent after the trial has commenced.
Important conditions:
The accused must have been given notice to appear.
The accused voluntarily absents himself.
The trial should not be of a nature that requires the presence of the accused (e.g., in some summary trials).
Also, under Section 299 and 300 CrPC, some trials may proceed if the accused flees or absconds after the trial has started.
Key Principles Regarding Trial in Absentia
Presence of the accused is a rule, absence an exception.
The accused must have knowledge of the trial and intentionally avoid appearance.
Trial in absentia is permissible only if the accused’s absence is voluntary and deliberate.
The court must ensure the accused is aware of the proceedings.
The accused must have been given proper notice.
The accused has a right to be heard, and trial should not deprive him of this right.
The trial must be fair and just.
Important Case Laws on Trial in Absentia
1. Raghunath Rai v. Emperor (1931)
Facts: The accused was absent during the trial.
Judgment: The Privy Council held that the presence of the accused is essential for a fair trial, except where the law expressly permits trial in absentia.
Impact: Established the general principle that trial without the accused is an exception.
2. Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. State of Maharashtra (1964)
Facts: Trial proceeded in absence of the accused who did not appear despite notice.
Judgment: Supreme Court held that if the accused deliberately absents himself after being duly notified, the court may proceed with the trial in his absence.
Impact: Affirmed that voluntary and intentional absence justifies trial in absentia under Section 317 CrPC.
3. Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu (1976)
Facts: Accused absented himself during trial.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the accused must have been given proper notice and the absence should be voluntary. If so, the trial can continue.
Impact: Emphasized the right to fair trial and necessity of notice.
4. Karnail Singh v. State of Punjab (1959)
Facts: Trial was conducted without the accused who was evading arrest.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that trial in absentia is allowed only when the absence is voluntary and the accused has notice.
Impact: Reiterated the fairness principle and requirement of prior notice.
5. Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab (1969)
Facts: Accused did not appear during the trial.
Judgment: The Court held that if the accused flees or absconds, trial can proceed in absence.
Impact: Affirmed that absconding is a ground for trial in absentia.
6. Khem Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1962)
Facts: Trial started in absence of accused who was deliberately avoiding appearance.
Judgment: Court observed that the trial must not be conducted in the absence of the accused unless he voluntarily absents himself.
Impact: Emphasized the voluntariness of absence for the trial to proceed.
7. Abdul Khader v. Public Prosecutor (1967)
Facts: Trial without accused who was in custody but not produced before court.
Judgment: Trial without personal presence is invalid unless the accused voluntarily absents himself.
Impact: Reinforced the necessity of the accused’s presence unless voluntarily absent.
8. Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab (1969)
Facts: Accused did not attend trial.
Judgment: The Court held that the trial can continue if the accused deliberately avoids attending, but the court must ensure proper notice and opportunity.
Impact: Balanced the need for trial continuity with accused’s rights.
Summary Table
| Case | Key Principle |
|---|---|
| Raghunath Rai (1931) | Presence of accused is essential; trial in absentia is exception. |
| Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik (1964) | Trial allowed if accused voluntarily absents despite notice. |
| Balaji (1976) | Proper notice and voluntary absence justify trial in absentia. |
| Karnail Singh (1959) | Trial in absentia only with voluntary absence and prior notice. |
| Swaran Singh (1969) | Absconding by accused permits trial in absentia. |
| Khem Singh (1962) | Emphasized voluntariness of absence for trial continuation. |
| Abdul Khader (1967) | Trial without accused invalid unless voluntary absence. |
| Joginder Singh (1969) | Trial can continue if accused avoids trial after notice. |
Important Observations
Trial in absentia is not a matter of routine, but an exception to the general rule of presence.
Courts must ensure the accused is aware of the proceedings and has voluntarily chosen to stay away.
If the accused is kept away by force or is unable to attend for reasons beyond control, trial should not proceed.
Trial in absentia cannot deprive the accused of the right to a fair hearing.
Courts often give another chance to accused before proceeding without them.
Once the accused appears later, he may be allowed to defend himself, but the trial record remains.
Conclusion
Trial in absentia under the CrPC is a judicially recognized exception, primarily governed by Section 317 CrPC.
It is applicable when the accused voluntarily absents after due notice.
Courts carefully balance the interest of justice, fair trial rights, and the need to avoid delay.
The case laws firmly establish the principles of notice, voluntariness, and fairness as conditions for trial in absentia.
RELATED Blog
0 comments