Trial Procedures For Serious Crimes
1. Filing of the First Information Report (FIR)
For serious crimes, the process usually begins with the lodging of an FIR by the victim or a witness. The police are mandated to register an FIR under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Case Law: Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2014 SC 187
The Supreme Court held that the police must register an FIR upon receiving information about the commission of a cognizable offence and begin investigation without delay.
2. Investigation
After FIR registration, the police conduct an investigation, collecting evidence, recording statements, and preparing the charge sheet.
Key points:
Police can arrest the accused if necessary.
They gather witness statements and forensic evidence.
The charge sheet is submitted to the court.
Case Law: Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani, AIR 1978 SC 1025
The court clarified the rights of the accused during investigation and emphasized the protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
3. Filing of Charge Sheet and Cognizance by Court
Upon completion of investigation, the police file a charge sheet. The court then takes cognizance of the offence.
Cognizance means the court's awareness and acceptance to try the case based on evidence submitted.
Case Law: State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, AIR 1999 SC 2378
It was held that the magistrate cannot take cognizance of an offence without a police report in serious crimes.
4. Commencement of Trial
Once cognizance is taken, the trial begins.
The accused is formally charged, and the charge is read out.
The accused can plead guilty or not guilty.
If not guilty, the prosecution starts presenting its evidence.
Case Law: Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1369
The Supreme Court stressed the importance of a speedy trial for accused in serious crimes to prevent undue detention.
5. Examination of Prosecution Witnesses
The prosecution examines witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
Witnesses are examined-in-chief, cross-examined by the defense, and may be re-examined.
Case Law: Koppula Venkat Rao v. Public Prosecutor, AIR 1969 SC 128
The Supreme Court emphasized that cross-examination is a vital tool for ascertaining truth and protecting accused rights.
6. Examination of Defense Witnesses
The defense has the opportunity to call witnesses to rebut prosecution evidence or support the accused.
The accused may also choose to remain silent.
Case Law: Smt. Selvi v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263
The court held that the accused has the right not to be compelled to testify against himself.
7. Arguments
After evidence is presented, both sides submit final arguments.
Prosecution summarizes evidence proving guilt.
Defense points out weaknesses or inconsistencies.
Case Law: State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram, AIR 2006 SC 1446
The Supreme Court discussed how arguments must be based on evidence on record.
8. Judgment and Sentence
The judge delivers the judgment, acquitting or convicting the accused based on evidence.
If convicted, sentencing follows according to the statute.
Case Law: Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898
Landmark judgment laying down guidelines for sentencing, including the death penalty in rare cases.
9. Appeals and Review
The convicted party can appeal the decision in a higher court.
The appellate court can uphold, reverse, or modify the judgment.
Case Law: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
Established principles of fair procedure applicable at all stages of trial and appeal.
Summary of Key Case Laws
| Case Name | Year | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Lalita Kumari v. UP | 2014 | Mandatory FIR registration for cognizable offences |
| Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani | 1978 | Right against self-incrimination during investigation |
| State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh | 1999 | Magistrate's cognizance only on police report |
| Hussainara Khatoon v. Bihar | 1979 | Right to speedy trial |
| Koppula Venkat Rao v. PP | 1969 | Importance of cross-examination |
| Selvi v. Karnataka | 2010 | Right to silence and no self-incrimination |
| State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram | 2006 | Arguments must be evidence-based |
| Bachan Singh v. Punjab | 1980 | Sentencing guidelines including death penalty |
| Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India | 1978 | Fair procedure in trial and appeals |
RELATED Blog
0 comments