Different aspects of Criminal Justice System in India

 

In this article we have discussed about the different aspects of Criminal Justice System in India in light of the fundamental rights embedded in the Constitution  

 

A. Introduction               

 

The criminal justice system is responsible for ensuring that offenders are brought to justice and that victims are provided with justice. The system also ensures that those accused of criminal activities are treated fairly and are given their due rights.

 

The primary purpose of the criminal justice system is to ensure that justice is served. It is also responsible for protecting the rights of the accused and providing victims with justice. The criminal justice system also serves as a deterrent to crime, as offenders are held accountable for their actions. In addition, the criminal justice system provides a sense of security to the public, as criminals are brought to justice.

 

B. Brief evolution of Criminal justice system in India

The evolution of the criminal justice system in India spans several centuries and has been influenced by various historical, cultural, and legal developments. Here's a brief overview:

i) Ancient Period:

• During ancient times, justice was administered through informal community mechanisms based on customary laws and traditions.
• Tribes and communities had their own systems of dispute resolution and punishment.

ii) Medieval Period:

• With the advent of Islamic rule in certain parts of India, Islamic law, or Sharia, influenced the legal system, particularly in matters related to personal law and criminal justice.
• Hindu kingdoms had their own legal codes, such as the Manusmriti, which prescribed punishments for various offenses.

iii) Colonial Era (17th - 20th Century):

• The British East India Company established control over parts of India in the 17th century, gradually expanding its influence.
• British colonial rulers introduced formalized legal systems, including the introduction of English common law and the establishment of courts based on British judicial practices.
• Major milestones during this period include the establishment of the Calcutta High Court in 1862 and the enactment of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in 1860, which continues to serve as the cornerstone of criminal law in India.
• The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) was introduced in 1861, laying down procedures for the investigation and trial of criminal cases.

iv) Post-Independence Era:

• With India gaining independence from British rule in 1947, efforts were made to reform and modernize the legal system.
• The Constitution of India, adopted in 1950, provided a framework for the administration of justice, ensuring fundamental rights and laying down principles of equality before the law and due process.
• Several significant reforms were introduced in subsequent decades, including amendments to the IPC and the CrPC, as well as the establishment of specialized tribunals and bodies to address specific legal issues.

v) Recent Developments:

• In recent years, there has been a focus on enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice system in India.
• Reforms have been aimed at addressing challenges such as delays in justice delivery, improving the investigation and prosecution process, and enhancing access to justice for marginalized communities.
• Initiatives such as the introduction of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, the use of technology in courts, and efforts to increase legal literacy among the population are ongoing to modernize and streamline the criminal justice system.

 

Overall, the evolution of the criminal justice system in India reflects a complex interplay of historical, cultural, and legal influences, with efforts ongoing to adapt and reform the system to meet the evolving needs of society.

 

C. Different aspects of criminal justice system-

 

Speedy Trial-Fair Trial.

 

It is the first aspect of the criminal justice system. It requires that the-trial should be completed as speedily as possible. Speedy trial means trial within the minimum possible and reasonable time.

 

Fair trial is one of the important aspects of speedy trial and the trial must be fair.

 

In Art. 21, no procedure can be reasonable fair and just unless that procedure ensures a speedy trial for the determination of the guilt of accused. That means speedy trial is one of the important components of fair trial to ensure fair, just and reasonable procedure.

 

Right to speedy trial covers all stages i.e., investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, review etc. (even restraint on arrest is also covered).

 

Speedy trial has been declared to be an integral and essential part of fundamental right to Life and Personal Liberty in many cases.

 

Kadra Pahadiya Vs, State of Bihar 1983(2) SSC 104. In this case, the accused was languishing in jail for 8 years without any trial Supreme Court said/clarified that if any such practice in any part of the country is being done, the person cornered can directly come to SC and can file a petition for the violation of their right.

 

Regarding speedy trial, Supreme Court laid down certain propositions.

 

1)  Fair, just and reasonable procedure is important in Art. 21 of the Indian Constitution. It even creates a right to the accused to be tried speedily.

 

2)  Right to speedy trial comprises of all the stages, i.e. investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, review etc.

 

3)  The period of remand and pre-conviction detention should be as far as possible shortened.

4)  Worry, anxiety, expense and disturbance to his vocation and peace resulting from unduly prolonged investigation, inquiry or that should be minimal.

 

5)  Court has also highlighted the delay in non-defence tactics and said the burden of proving of guilt of the accused lies on prosecution.

 

6)  Frivolous proceedings or proceedings taken merely for delaying the trial should not be treated as proceedings in good faith.

 

7)  Determining the question of undue delay, one must keep in mind all attendant circumstances including nature of offence, number of accused, number of witnesses, workload of the court concerned and the prevailing conditions, etc.

 

8)  The court has to balance and weigh the several relevant factors i.e. it has to apply the balance test, in determining whether the trial has been delayed or not?

 

9)  It is neither advisable nor practicable to fix a time limit for trial of offences. In this context, Antulay's case is important.

 

In this case, prosecution was started under “Prevention of Corruption Act in December 1981, but the trial was not completed till 1991. So, he sought quashing of prosecution on account of infringement of right to speedy trial. Held - Supreme Court refused to quash the proceeding and said most of the delay was caused because of the accused himself raising objections from time to time.

 

Santosh De Vs. Archana Guha AIR 1994 SC 1229. In this case, Supreme Court quashed proceedings on the ground of inordinate delay, due to non-initiation of the trial for 14 years. A public servant was charged with corruption and a case was filed but the Government of Bihar refused to give permission to prosecute, therefore no chargesheet could be filed for seven years but the prosecution was kept pending. Supreme Court quashed the prosecution saying that the long delay was caused entirely and exclusively because of the default of the prosecution and it has not been able to explain the reasons for delay. The inexplainable long delay in commencing trial by itself infringed the right of the accused of the to speedy trial.

 

Long Pre-trial Confinement

 

Long pre-trial confinement-this is a very grievous and cruel aspect of the present-day administration of criminal justice. Generally, the person languishes in jail awaiting trial because there was no one for him to obtain bail. This perpetrates great injustice and jeopardizes his Personal Liberty and sometimes an undertrial prisoner may remain in prison for much longer time than even the maximum sentence of imprisonment that can be awarded to him on conviction for the alleged offence.

 

Unless and until the guilt of the accused is proved, he is considered to be innocent and keeping such innocent persons in jail for a long period is unfair, unjust and unreasonable.

 

The Court has declared that after the dynamic interpretation of Art. 21 in Maneka's case, there is little doubt that any procedure which keeps a large number of people behind bars without trial so long cannot possibly be regarded as reasonable just and fair and so as to be in conformity with the Art. 21.

 

Bail

 

Supreme Court has diagonised the root cause for long pre-trial confinement to be the present-day unsatisfactory and irrational rules for bail, which merely insist on financial security from the accused and their sureties. The court has characterized this system of bail as antiquated and oppressive and totally against the poor.

 

Babu Singh Vs State of U.P, AIR 1978 SC 527. In this case, SC said the issue was one of the liberty, justice and public safety and burden on the public treasury, all of which insists that a developed jurisprudence of bail is integral to a socially sensitive judicial process.

 

So, the court gave some constructive suggestions to change legal provisions for bail and that rule for bail should not be based merely on financial sureties, but other factors should also Court has laid down that under the existing law if the trial court feels satisfied that the accused has his roots in the community and he is not likely to abscond, it can safely release him on him personal bond without surety.

 

Supreme Court has said that even in TADA Cases, if there is a possibility of bail, release of accused on bail may be necessary as it can be taken to be embedded in the right to speedy and fair trial under Art 21.

 

Parole- is a conditional release of the prisoner after he has served a part of the sentence.

 

To ensure speedy trial, the Supreme Court has issued directions to the state government to establish more criminal courts.

 

On this matter, Law Commission in its 77th and 78th Report as well as the Supreme Court have said that the matter of reducing delay and arrears in the trial court is of the greatest importance and to which highest priority has to be given.

 

Legal Aid

 

SC has taken a big step forward in humanising the administration of criminal justice by saying that, "free legal aid should be provided by the state to the poor prisoners and this has been said so by the SC in various other cases time and again.

 

Hussainara Khatoon Vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1369. In this case the Supreme Court said, it is an essential ingredient of reasonable, fair and just procedure to a prisoner who seeks liberation through the court's process that he should have legal services available to him and in supporting, this viewpoint, court also invoked Art. 39 and the court has emphasized that the legal assistance to a poor accused who is arrested and put in jeopardy of Life and Personal Liberty and his constitutional imperative mandated not only by Art. 39 A but also by Art. 21 and An 14.

 

The trial court is under an obligation to tell the accused who does not have legal representative that he is entitled to be represented by a lawyer at the cost of the state.

 

Ranjan Trivedi Vs. Union of India AIR 1983 SC 624. In this case, there was a rule which prescribed in Delhi High Court that a daily fee of Rs. 24 would payable to a lawyer appearing as amicus curiae in the High Court. Mr. Ranjan argued that no lawyer will agree to appear for this paltry sum and as a matter of procedural fair play, state should provide a lawyer on the basis of equal opportunity. SC agreed with this view, and therefore enhanced the daily fee to Rs. 500 per day to a Senior Counsel and Rs. 350 per day to a Junior counsel appearing as amicus curiae.

 

Hand Cuffing

 

Prem Shanker Shukla Vs Delhi Adm. AIR 1980 SC 1535. In this case, SC declared that handcuffing is prima facie inhuman and therefore, unreasonable and arbitrary. The Court held that the rule requiring every undertrial accused of non bailable offence punishable with more than 3 years imprisonment to be handcuffed during transit from prison to court violates Art. 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

 

The only circumstances validating handcuffing is that there is no other reasonable way for preventing the escape of the accused, only then handcuffing would be reasonable and moreover reasons for handcuffing are to be duly recorded by the concerned authorities.

 

Citizens' Democracy Vs. State of Assam AIR 1996 SC 2193. In this case, court directed that handcuffs or other factors shall not be imposed on persons convicted or persons undertrial while lodged in jail or while in-transit from jail to court or from court to jail. And that the police and jail authorities shall have no authority to direct handcuffing without the orders of the Magistrate.

 

Rights of Prisoners

 

State of Maharashtra Vs. Prabhkar Pandurang, AIR 1996 SC 424, Even a prisoner has all the fundamental rights. In this case, the right of the detenue to send his book written during the period of detention for publication was recognised.

 

Sunil Batra Vs. Delhi Administration AIR 1978 SC 1675, Solitary confinement of prisoner, who was awarded capital punishment was held bad as it was imposed not as a consequence of prison discipline but because he was convict of death sentence.

 

Kewal Pati (Smt.) Vs. State of U.P. 1995 (3) SCC 600, the Prisoner has fundamental right to be protected from the fellow co-prisoners. In case a prisoner is killed by co-prisoners then, the state may be compelled to compensate the dependants of the deceased.

 

Death Sentence:

 

Law commission in its 35th Report has favoured the retaining of death sentence in India. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the death sentence in the under-mentioned case.

Rajendra Prasad Vs. State of U.P. AIR 1979 SC 96, the Court in this case agreed with the proposition that as deadly penalty finally deprives one of his rights to Life and other fundamental rights and the validity of such a penalty can be tested with reference to Art. 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

 

The Court rejected the argument that it is not unreasonable to leave the discretion with the judge to sentence an accused to death or life imprisonment and it is not invalid under Art. 14. All relevant facts and circumstances are brought on record during trial and the judges balance a number of aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the case and then record the reasons in writing for awarding the death sentence Moreover, this judicial discretion can be corrected by superior courts later on.

 

Machhi Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 917, Death Penalty need not be inflicted except in gravest cases of extreme culpability and that life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception.

 

In Allauddin Mian Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1989 SC 1456, the Supreme Court referred to Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898 and Machhi Singh's case and held that death sentence should be reserved for “the rarest of rare” cases which were of an exceptional nature.

 

D. Conclusion

 

The criminal justice system in India is responsible for ensuring that justice is served and that offenders are brought to justice. The criminal justice system is composed of the police, the judiciary, and the correctional system. The purpose of the criminal justice system is to ensure that justice is served and that those accused of criminal activities are treated fairly. The types of punishments meted out by the criminal justice system vary depending on the severity of the crime. The roles of the prosecution, defense, judge, victim, and jury are all important in ensuring that justice is served.

 

The criminal justice system in India is an important part of our society, and it is essential that we understand how it works. By understanding the components of the criminal justice system and the different types of punishments meted out by it, we can ensure that justice is served and that offenders are brought to justice.