Comparative Criminal Law India Vs Uk
Comparative Criminal Law: India vs. UK
Overview:
India: Criminal law is primarily codified in the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, and Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is influenced by English Common Law but has evolved uniquely.
UK: The UK (mainly England and Wales) relies on common law principles, supplemented by statutory laws such as the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, Criminal Justice Act 2003, and others. There is no single codified penal code.
Key Areas of Comparison with Cases:
1. Principle of Criminal Liability (Mens Rea & Actus Reus)
India: Follows the classic principle of actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind) under IPC Sections 299 and 300 (murder).
UK: Same foundational principle applies, but with subtle differences in mens rea for specific offenses.
Indian Case: State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George (1965) SCR 1012
Facts: The accused was charged with murder but claimed absence of mens rea.
Held: The Supreme Court held that mens rea is essential for criminal liability; mere act without guilty intention is insufficient.
Significance: Reiterated the importance of intention or knowledge in criminal liability.
UK Case: R v Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396
Facts: Defendant removed a gas meter, causing harm; the question was whether reckless intent existed.
Held: Recklessness requires awareness of risk. Conviction quashed as the prosecution failed to prove defendant foresaw the harm.
Significance: Introduced the subjective test of recklessness in UK criminal law.
2. Presumption of Innocence and Burden of Proof
India: The prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Indian courts strictly follow this principle as per Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act.
UK: Same principle applies; however, some statutory exceptions shift the burden to the accused in specific cases.
Indian Case: Kishore Samrite v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2002) 3 SCC 330
Held: Burden of proof lies on prosecution; if there is doubt, accused benefits.
Significance: Reaffirmed presumption of innocence as a fundamental right.
UK Case: R v Lambert [2001] UKHL 37
Facts: Defendant challenged statutory reversal of burden in drug possession cases.
Held: The House of Lords held that reversal of burden is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights if it is proportionate.
Significance: UK courts allow burden shifting but with safeguards.
3. Right to Legal Representation
India: Right to counsel is guaranteed under Article 22(1) and Article 21 of the Constitution. Legal aid is provided in serious cases.
UK: Right to legal aid is well established under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012; however, availability may be subject to means testing.
Indian Case: Khatri v. State of Bihar, AIR 1981 SC 928
Held: Right to legal representation is fundamental; denial renders trial unfair.
UK Case: R v Robson [1985] QB 524
Held: Right to legal counsel is fundamental but subject to public funding rules.
4. Death Penalty
India: Retains the death penalty but applies the “rarest of rare” doctrine from Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) for imposing capital punishment.
UK: Abolished death penalty for all crimes (abolished in 1998 for all crimes including treason).
Indian Case: Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898
Held: Death penalty only in the “rarest of rare” cases.
Significance: Introduced stringent standards limiting capital punishment.
UK Case: R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Bentley (1994)
Significance: Landmark case highlighting abolition and wrongful executions.
5. Evidentiary Standards and Electronic Evidence
India: Indian Evidence Act Sections 65A and 65B provide for electronic evidence admissibility; requires certification.
UK: The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 regulate evidence, including electronic.
Indian Case: Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473
Held: Electronic evidence must comply with Section 65B certificate.
Significance: Set strict rules for digital evidence.
UK Case: R v. Marshall [1998] EWCA Crim 1641
Held: Courts must consider authenticity and reliability of electronic evidence.
Significance: Established precedents for digital forensic evidence.
Summary Table:
| Aspect | India | UK |
|---|---|---|
| Criminal Liability | Codified IPC; mens rea essential | Common law with statutory overlay |
| Burden of Proof | On prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt | Same, but some burden shifts allowed |
| Right to Counsel | Constitutional right with legal aid | Right with statutory legal aid framework |
| Death Penalty | Retained under “rarest of rare” doctrine | Abolished completely |
| Electronic Evidence | Sections 65A, 65B Evidence Act | PACE, Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act |
RELATED Blog
0 comments