Trial Procedures Under Criminal Procedure Code (Crpc)
πΉ Trial Procedures under CrPC (Overview)
The Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973, provides the procedural framework for conducting trials in India. Depending on the gravity of the offence, the CrPC prescribes different types of trials:
Summons Trial (Sections 251β259)
Warrant Trial (Sections 238β250)
Sessions Trial (Sections 225β237)
Summary Trial (Sections 260β265)
Each type of trial has its own procedure, but the general structure of a criminal trial includes:
Filing of FIR and investigation
Filing of Charge Sheet
Cognizance by Magistrate
Framing of charges
Prosecution evidence
Statement of the accused (Sec. 313)
Defence evidence (if any)
Final arguments
Judgment
πΉ Types of Trials β Explained
1. Sessions Trial (Sections 225β237)
Conducted for serious offences (punishable with more than 7 years, life imprisonment, or death).
Tried in a Sessions Court after commitment by a Magistrate under Section 209.
Trial is conducted by a Public Prosecutor, and the accused is entitled to legal representation.
2. Warrant Trial (Sections 238β250)
For offences punishable with imprisonment exceeding two years.
Can be based on a police report (charge sheet) or otherwise (complaint cases).
Includes framing of formal charges and examination of prosecution and defence.
3. Summons Trial (Sections 251β259)
For offences punishable with imprisonment of less than 2 years.
No formal charge is framed; the accused is informed of the offence.
Simpler and faster process.
4. Summary Trial (Sections 260β265)
For petty cases, with maximum punishment up to 6 months.
Conducted in a quick manner; the record is maintained in summary form.
πΉ Important Stages in a Criminal Trial
Cognizance and Process Issuance β (Sections 190β204)
Charge Framing β (Sections 211β224)
Examination of Witnesses β (Sections 273β299)
Statement of the Accused β (Section 313)
Judgment and Sentencing β (Sections 353β365)
πΉ Key Case Laws Explained
1. β State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajesh Gautam (2003) 8 SCC 527
Context: Discharge under Section 227 CrPC.
Facts:
The accused filed for discharge in a Sessions case, arguing there was no prima facie evidence.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that Section 227 empowers the court to discharge an accused if the judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding. However, at this stage, a meticulous appreciation of evidence is not required.
Significance:
The judge is required only to see whether there is a strong suspicion against the accused, which, if unanswered, would lead to conviction.
2. β State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh (1977) 4 SCC 39
Context: Framing of charges under Section 228 CrPC.
Held:
The court must frame charges if there is a prima facie case, even if the evidence produced by the prosecution is not sufficient for conviction. Suspicion, if strong, is enough to frame charges.
Significance:
This case clarified that framing of charge is not a stage to evaluate the evidence meticulously. Itβs a stage to check whether the accused should be put on trial.
3. β Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004) 4 SCC 158 β βBest Bakery Caseβ
Context: Fair Trial under Article 21 and Section 311, 313 CrPC.
Held:
The Supreme Court strongly emphasized the right to a fair trial, stating that fair trial is the heart of criminal jurisprudence, and justice must not only be done but also appear to be done.
Significance:
The court invoked Section 311 CrPC (Power to summon material witness) and criticized the failure of prosecution and the trial court in ensuring a fair process.
4. β Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263
Context: Use of Narco-analysis and other techniques in trial.
Held:
The involuntary administration of techniques like narco-analysis, polygraph, and brain mapping violated Article 20(3) and Section 161(2) CrPC (Right against self-incrimination).
Significance:
The case reinforced procedural fairness and held that trial procedures must respect constitutional safeguards.
5. β Natabar Parida v. State of Orissa (1975) 2 SCC 220
Context: Bail and Pre-trial procedures under CrPC.
Held:
The Supreme Court clarified the distinction between bailable and non-bailable offences, and how bail provisions must be interpreted in the context of personal liberty (Article 21).
Significance:
It emphasized that pre-trial procedures must not become punitive and stressed on balancing liberty with societal interests.
6. β K. Anbazhagan v. State of Karnataka (2015) 6 SCC 86
Context: Transfer of trial and fair procedure.
Held:
The Supreme Court ordered transfer of trial to ensure fair and impartial proceedings, reiterating that public confidence in the judicial process is vital.
Significance:
Highlights that transfer of trial under Sections 406 or 407 CrPC is permissible when fair trial is in jeopardy.
7. β Babu v. State of Kerala (2010) 9 SCC 189
Context: Benefit of doubt and burden of proof.
Held:
If two views are possible and one supports the accused, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
Significance:
Reinforces the core principle of "innocent until proven guilty", a key aspect of trial under CrPC.
πΉ Conclusion
The CrPC establishes a detailed and structured process for criminal trials, aiming to ensure justice while protecting the rights of the accused. The judiciary, through landmark decisions, has consistently emphasized:
Fair trial (Zahira Sheikh case)
Proper charge framing (Ramesh Singh case)
Right against self-incrimination (Selvi case)
Procedural safeguards (Rajesh Gautam case)
Each stage of the trial serves a specific purpose, and case law has helped shape these into a robust framework of criminal justice in India.
RELATED Blog
0 comments