Supreme Court Issues Guidelines for Criminal Trials: In Re: Inadequacies and Deficiencies in Criminal Trials (20 April 2021)

Date of the Judgment: 20 April 2021

Citation: Suo Motu Writ (Crl) No.(S) 1/2017

Judges: S.A. Bobde, CJI, L. Nageswara Rao, J, S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

Can a lack of uniform practices in criminal trials lead to prolonged proceedings and hinder justice? The Supreme Court of India, in a suo motu proceeding, addressed this critical issue by establishing guidelines to standardize procedures in criminal trials across the country. This judgment aims to rectify inconsistencies in how evidence is presented, witnesses are examined, and judgments are delivered, thereby ensuring a more efficient and fair judicial process. The bench comprised of Chief Justice S.A. Bobde, Justice L. Nageswara Rao, and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat.

Case Background

This suo motu proceeding was initiated by the Supreme Court of India during the hearing of a criminal appeal. The Court observed several recurring deficiencies in criminal trials, including inconsistent practices in presenting documents, preparing injury reports, recording witness depositions, and labeling material objects. These inconsistencies were causing delays and difficulties in appreciating evidence, particularly at the appellate stages. The Court noted that while some High Courts had formulated rules to address these issues, many others had not, leading to a lack of uniformity across the country.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Supreme Court, after identifying the inadequacies, issued notices to all High Courts, State and Union Territory administrations, and legal representatives. The Court appointed senior advocates as amici curiae to assist in formulating draft rules. A colloquium was held to gather feedback from various stakeholders. Based on the responses and suggestions, the amici curiae submitted the “Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2020”. The High Courts were again directed to file their responses to the draft rules, and most of the suggestions were agreed upon, with a few reservations on specific aspects.

Legal Framework

The judgment references several key provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC) and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. These include:

• Section 132, Cr.PC: This section states that every witness is bound to answer questions, subject to the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
• Section 148, Cr.PC: This section empowers the court to decide whether a witness should be compelled to answer a question, especially if it is not relevant to the case. It also outlines considerations for the court in exercising this discretion. The section states:
  
  “148. Court to decide when question shall be asked and when witness compelled to answer. –– If any such question relates to a matter not relevant to the suit or proceeding, except in so far as it affects the credit of the witness by injuring his character, the Court shall decide whether or not the witness shall be compelled to answer it, and may, if it thinks fit, warn the witness that he is not obliged to answer it. In exercising its discretion, the Court shall have regard to the following considerations: –– (1) such questions are proper if they are of such a nature that the truth of the imputation conveyed by them would seriously affect the opinion of the Court as to the credibility of the witness on the matter to which he testifies; (2) such questions are improper if the imputation which they convey relates to matters so remote in time, or of such a character, that the truth of the imputation would not affect, or would affect in a slight degree, the opinion of the Court as to the credibility of the witness on the matter to which he testifies; (3) such questions are improper if there is a great disproportion between the importance of the imputation made against the witness’ s character and the importance of his evidence; (4) the Court may, if it sees fit, draw, from the witness’ s refusal to answer, the inference that the answer if given would be unfavourable”
• Sections 149-154, Indian Evidence Act, 1872: These sections define the rules for cross-examination, allowing for a broad scope of questioning but also granting the court the power to rule on the relevance of questions.
• Section 207 and 208 Cr.PC: These sections deal with the supply of documents to the accused.
• Section 294 Cr.PC: This section deals with the admission/denial of documents.
• Section 309 Cr.PC: This section deals with the procedure for expeditious trials.
• Section 354 and 355 Cr.PC: These sections deal with the content of judgments.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court highlighted several key issues:

• Amici Curiae:
  • Argued that accused individuals are often not provided with a list of all materials in the possession of the police or prosecution, including exculpatory evidence. They emphasized that this lack of transparency hinders a fair trial.
  • They contended that the practice of recording all answers to questions, regardless of objections, as mandated in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat [(2001) 3 SCC 1], leads to prolonged cross-examinations and the inclusion of irrelevant and prejudicial information in the record.
  • They submitted that the rule in Bipin Shantilal Panchal (supra) requires reconsideration.
  • They emphasized the need for a preliminary case management hearing to schedule witness depositions and streamline trials.
• High Courts:
  • Expressed reservations about the mandatory translation of depositions, citing practical difficulties.
  • Suggested that references to accused/witnesses/material objects should include names along with numbers to avoid confusion.
  • Raised concerns about the feasibility of conducting day-to-day trials due to witness unavailability and other practical constraints.
  • Welcomed the separation of prosecution from investigation but noted that it should be actively pursued by the State Governments.
• State Governments and Union Territories:
  • Assured that they would incorporate the Draft Rules relating to body sketches, photographs/videographs of post-mortems, and spot panchnamas into their police manuals.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issues:

1. What are the necessary steps to ensure uniform practices in criminal trials across the country?
2. How can the process of recording evidence be improved to avoid unnecessary delays and ensure that only relevant information is brought on record?
3. What measures can be taken to ensure that accused individuals are provided with all necessary materials for a fair trial?
4. How can the trial process be expedited while ensuring that all parties have a fair opportunity to present their case?
5. Whether the practice mandated in Bipin Shantilal Panchal (supra) requires reconsideration?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat [(2001) 3 SCC 1]*: The Supreme Court modified the practice mandated in this case, which required objections to be decided at the final stage of the trial. The Court held that this practice leads to prolonged cross-examination and cluttering of the record with irrelevant information. The Court directed that objections to questions should be decided during the course of the proceeding or at the end of the deposition of the concerned witness.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to ensure fair and efficient criminal trials. The Court emphasized the importance of transparency, relevance, and expeditious proceedings. The Court considered the practical difficulties faced by trial courts and the need to balance the rights of the accused with the need for a speedy trial. The Court also considered the need for uniform practices across the country to avoid inconsistencies and delays.

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning

The Court, while modifying the practice mandated in Bipin Shantilal Panchal (supra), stated that “the presiding officer therefore, should decide objections to questions, during the course of the proceeding, or failing it at the end of the deposition of the concerned witness.” This decision was made to avoid cluttering the record with irrelevant details and to prevent frivolous objections.

The Court also noted that “while furnishing the list of statements, documents and material objects under Sections 207/208, Cr. PC, the magistrate should also ensure that a list of other materials, (such as statements, or objects/documents seized, but not relied on) should be furnished to the accused.” This was to ensure that the accused has access to all relevant materials for a fair trial.

Further, the Court emphasized that “the courts in all criminal trials should, at the beginning of the trial, i.e. after summoning of the accused, and framing of charges, hold a preliminary case management hearing.” This was to schedule witness depositions and ensure that trials are conducted expeditiously.

Key Takeaways

• Uniformity in Criminal Trials: The judgment mandates the adoption of the Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2021, by all High Courts, ensuring consistency in trial procedures.
• Relevance in Evidence: The practice of recording all answers regardless of objections has been modified. Now, the presiding officer must decide on objections during the proceedings or at the end of the deposition.
• Transparency in Disclosure: Accused individuals are entitled to a list of all materials, including those not relied upon by the prosecution, ensuring a more transparent trial process.
• Expeditious Trials: The introduction of a preliminary case management hearing aims to streamline trial proceedings and ensure timely justice.
• Modification of Bipin Shantilal Panchal: The practice mandated in Bipin Shantilal Panchal (supra) has been modified to ensure that only relevant information is brought on record.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

• All High Courts shall incorporate the Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2021, into their rules within six months.
• State governments and the Union of India shall amend their police and other manuals to align with the Draft Rules within six months.
• The appropriate forms and guidelines shall be brought into force, and all agencies instructed accordingly, within six months.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that there is a need for uniform practices in criminal trials across the country. The Supreme Court has modified the practice mandated in Bipin Shantilal Panchal (supra), which required objections to be decided at the final stage of the trial. The Court has also directed that a list of all materials, including those not relied upon by the prosecution, should be furnished to the accused. This judgment has brought a change in the previous position of law by emphasizing the need for a more transparent, relevant, and expeditious trial process.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in In Re: To Issue Certain Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies in Criminal Trials is a significant step towards standardizing criminal trial procedures in India. By mandating the adoption of the Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2021, the Court aims to address inconsistencies, ensure transparency, and promote efficiency in the judicial process. The modification of the practice mandated in Bipin Shantilal Panchal (supra) and the emphasis on providing all materials to the accused are crucial for ensuring fair trials. This judgment is expected to have a far-reaching impact on how criminal trials are conducted across the country, ultimately leading to a more just and efficient legal system.