Criminal Trial Procedure in India

Posted on March 21 by Suprajaa Rajan

A criminal trial is the formal judicial process through which a court determines the guilt or innocence of an accused person based on evidence presented before it. The trial ensures that justice is administered in accordance with established legal principles, including fairness, due process, and the presumption of innocence.

The procedure governing criminal trials is laid down under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and its corresponding provisions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

A criminal trial begins after the court takes cognisance of an offence and proceeds through several structured stages until the delivery of judgment.

Types of Criminal Trials

The law recognises different types of trials depending on the nature and seriousness of the offence.

Sessions Trial

Serious offences such as those punishable with severe penalties are tried by a Court of Session. These trials are governed by:

Sections 225–237 CrPC (Sections 248–260 BNSS)

Warrant Trial

Cases involving offences punishable with imprisonment exceeding two years are tried as warrant cases:

Sections 238–250 CrPC (Sections 261–273 BNSS)

Summons Trial

Less serious offences are tried as summons cases:

Sections 251–259 CrPC (Sections 274–282 BNSS)

Thus, the classification ensures that procedure varies according to the gravity of the offence.

Stages of Criminal Trial

A criminal trial follows a structured sequence. Each stage plays a specific role in ensuring fairness and proper adjudication.

1. Taking Cognisance

The trial process begins when the Magistrate takes cognisance under:

Section 190 CrPC (Section 210 BNSS)

At this stage, the court examines the police report or complaint and decides whether to proceed.

2. Appearance of Accused

Once the court takes cognisance, it secures the presence of the accused by issuing:

Summons
Warrant

This ensures that the accused appears before the court and participates in the proceedings.

3. Supply of Documents

The court must provide copies of relevant documents to the accused under:

Section 207 CrPC (Section 230 BNSS)

These documents include:

Charge sheet
Statements of witnesses
Other material relied upon by the prosecution

This step ensures transparency and fairness.

4. Framing of Charges

Next, the court frames charges under:

Section 228 CrPC (Section 251 BNSS)
Section 240 CrPC (Section 263 BNSS)

At this stage, the court formally informs the accused of the allegations. The accused may either plead guilty or claim trial.

5. Prosecution Evidence

If the accused claims trial, the prosecution begins presenting evidence.

This stage includes:

Examination-in-chief of witnesses
Cross-examination by the defence
Re-examination if required

The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

6. Statement of Accused

After the prosecution evidence concludes, the court records the statement of the accused under:

Section 313 CrPC (Section 351 BNSS)

This allows the accused to explain the circumstances appearing in evidence against them.

7. Defence Evidence

The accused may then present defence evidence, although this step is optional.

The defence may:

Examine witnesses
Produce documents
Challenge prosecution evidence

This stage strengthens the principle of fair opportunity to defend.

8. Final Arguments

Both parties present their final arguments.

The prosecution summarises evidence to establish guilt
The defence highlights inconsistencies and raises doubts

The court, thus, evaluates these submissions before delivering judgment.

9. Judgment

Finally, the court delivers judgment under:

Section 353 CrPC (Section 392 BNSS)

The court may:

Convict the accused, or
Acquit the accused

The judgment must contain reasons and findings based on evidence.

Standard of Proof in Criminal Trials

The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This high standard protects individuals from wrongful conviction.

If reasonable doubt exists, the court must give the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquit them.

Rights of the Accused During Trial

The criminal trial process protects several fundamental rights of the accused.

These include:

Right to a fair trial
Right to legal representation
Right to cross-examine witnesses
Right against self-incrimination

These safeguards ensure that the trial remains just, impartial, and balanced.

Importance of Criminal Trial Procedure

Criminal trial procedure ensures that justice is not arbitrary but follows a structured legal process.

It:

Protects individual liberty
Ensures accountability for offences
Maintains public confidence in the justice system

Therefore, a properly conducted trial is essential for the rule of law.

Conclusion

The criminal trial procedure, thus, forms the backbone of the justice delivery system. It, undeniably, ensures that courts determine guilt or innocence through a fair and structured process.

By incorporating safeguards, procedural checks, and judicial oversight, the system therefore balances the rights of the accused with the need to prosecute offences effectively and uphold justice.

Related Legal Concepts

Explore the earlier stages that lead to a criminal trial:

Index of Law Concepts explained here.

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.

+91-9606345150

Jai Prakash Tiwari Vs State of Madhya Pradesh on 04 Aug 2022

Posted on March 8, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A Full bench of the Apex Court held as follows regarding the important of fundamental right available to accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C.

From Paras 18 and 19,

18. Another important issue that merits consideration in the present appeal is that the accused-appellant, in his Section 313 statement, stated that he and the complainant belonged to opposing student parties. The accused-appellant claimed that owing to the animosity pertaining to the elections, the accused-appellant was falsely implicated in the matter. He also produced two witnesses to prove his alibi. DW1 and DW2 have stated that the accused appellant was in his village as his mother was unwell. Moreover, the accused-appellant also pointed out to the Court that the father, sister and brother of the complainant were all a part of the police department. The accused-appellant also brought to the notice of the Court the fact that the complainant had also registered another criminal case against the accused-appellant in which he already stands acquitted.

19. In the case at hand, the alternate version put forth by the appellant-accused could not be ignored. Section 313 CrPC confers a valuable right upon an accused to establish his innocence and can well be considered beyond a statutory right, as a constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.[See Reena Hazarika v. State of Assam, (2019) 13 SCC 289]

From Paras 25-28,

25. In the present case, the courts below failed to scrutinize the defence version put forward by the appellant-accusedin his Section 313 statement. The object of Section 313 of the Codeis to establish a direct dialogue between the court and the accused. (See Asraf Ali v. State of Assam, (2008) 16 SCC 328)
26. The purpose of Section 313 CrPC is to provide the accused a reasonable opportunity to explain the adverse circumstances which have emerged against him during the course of trial.A reasonable opportunity entails putting all the adverse evidences in the form of questions so as to give an opportunity to the accused to articulate his defence and givehis explanation.
27. If all the circumstances are bundled together and a singleopportunity is provided to the accused to explain himself, he may not able to put forth a rational and intelligibleexplanation. Such, exercises which defeats fair opportunity are nothing but empty formality. Non-fulfilment of the true spirit of Section 313 may ultimately cause grave prejudice tothe accused and the Court may not have the benefit of all the necessary facts and circumstances to arrive at a fair conclusion.
28. Such an omission does not ipso facto vitiate the trial, unless the accused fails to prove that grave prejudice has been caused to him. Although the counsel on behalf the accused has not proved any serious prejudice caused to him due to failure of the Court in framing individual circumstances; however, considering the long pendency of the matter and the right of the accused to have a fair and expeditious trial, we propose to proceed and decide the matter on its own merit.

From Para 29,

29. It is an established principle of criminal law that the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is upon the prosecution. Where an accused sets up a defence or offers an explanation, it is well-settled that he is not required to prove his defence beyond a reasonable doubt but only by preponderance of probabilities. [See M. Abbas v. State of Kerala, (2001) 10 SCC 103]. Further, it has been held by this Court in Parminder Kaur v. State of Punjab, (2020) 8 SCC 811 that “once a plausible version has been put forth in defence at the Section 313 CrPC examination stage, then it is for the prosecution to negate such defence plea”.

Jai Prakash Tiwari Vs State of Madhya Pradesh on 04 Aug 2022

Kalicharan and Ors Vs State of Uttar Pradesh on 14 Dec 2022

Posted on February 21, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of the Apex Court held as follows:

From Para 22,

22. Such a case was not at all made out by the prosecution in the evidence before the Court. The material brought on record by the prosecution witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) is to the effect that Harpal Singh died due to injuries sustained as a result of an attack made by accused nos.1,3 and 4 on him by sharp weapons. These material circumstances brought on record against the accused on which their conviction is based were never put to the accused. What was put to the accused was not the case made out by the prosecution in the evidence. No questions are asked in the Section 313 statement about the post-mortem of the body of Harpal Singh. It is not put to the witness that the cause of death of Harpal Singh was due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of injuries caused by sharp weapons. Questioning an accused under Section 313 CrPC is not an empty formality. The requirement of Section 313 CrPC is that the accused must be explained the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him so that accused can offer an explanation. After an accused is questioned under Section 313 CrPC, he is entitled to take a call on the question of examining defence witnesses and leading other evidence. If the accused is not explained the important circumstances appearing against him in the evidence on which his conviction is sought to be based, the accused will not be in a position to explain the said circumstances brought on record against him. He will not be able to properly defend himself.

Kalicharan and Ors Vs State of Uttar Pradesh on 14 Dec 2022

Summary:

(credit: Pankaj Awasthi)

Citations :

Other Sources:

Saraswathi Vs Thirupathi and Anr on 24 Sep 2014

Posted on April 10, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

Madras High Court bench at Madurai spelt out this judgment, only applicable to marriage performed in Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry, regards to Bigamy in Hindus.

From Para 22,

22.A reading of the said Section will make it clear that for the validity of a marriage between two Hindus, no specific form is necessary. Either by acknowledging in the language known to eachparties that each of them takes the other as husband or wife, as the case may be, in the presence of elders and relatives or friends orother persons, or by symbolic representation of such declaration by exchanging rings, exchanging garlands or tying thali will be sufficientobservance of the formality to make a Hindu Marriage among the two Hindus in Tamil Nadu to be valid. The very fact that the sectionemployees the conjunction ‘or’ and not ‘and’ while describing formalities to be observed is very significant. It is brought to the notice of the Court by the Bar that at the time of drafting of the Bill, the conjunction ‘and’ was used and when it was placed before the reformer in Dravidar Movement namely, E.Vera.Ramasamy Periyar, for his opinion, he alone suggested the correction of the conjunction ‘and’ into ‘or’ to make it clear that the symbolic representation ‘in any one of the forms’ shall be sufficient. The section also provides for validation of marriages performed prior to the introduction of Section 7-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and several such marriages were saved from being held void for non observance of any of the customary rituals provided the conditions found in Section 7-A were present. After the amendment in Tamil Nadu, for convicting a person professing Hindu religion for bigamy, it shall be enough to show that the underwent a form of marriage which complies with the above condition namely, acknowledgment by words or symbolic representation of acknowledgement by exchanging garlands or exchanging of rings or tying of thali provided the marriage is with a woman professing Hindu religion. What the appellant/complainant has to prove is that but for the subsistence of the first marriage, the second marriage would have been valid.

From Para 26, Crucial Piece of Law:

26. A perusal of the said provision will make it clear that thesaid Section can be pressed into service against the first respondent alone, who contracted the second marriage during the subsistence of his marriage with the appellant/complainant. It is not the case of the appellant/complainant that the second respondent was having a husband and she married the first respondent as her second husband during the subsistence of her marriage with her first husband, in which event alone she can be roped in as an accused under Section 494 IPC. But, if it is established that she married the first respondent with the knowledge that the first respondent was already married and his first wife namely, the appellant/complainant was living and that their marriage was subsisting, she shall not be liable for the substantive offence punishable under Section 494 IPC, but shall be liable to be punished under Section 494 IPC read with Section 109 IPC for having abetted the commission of the said offence. Of course, as per Section 109 IPC when no express provision is made in the Code for the punishment of abetment of a particular offence, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, then such abettor shall be punishable with the punishment provided for the offence. Here is a case in which the marriage has taken place and hence, if the second respondent is proved to have got the knowledge of the first marriage of the first respondent with the appellant/ complainant, then she shall be liable to be punished with the punishment prescribed under Section 494 IPC. However, when a person is to be punished for abetment of an offence, separate charge stating that she is prosecuted for abetting such an offence and that the act abetted has been committed should have been framed. The charge against the second respondent ought to have been framed as one for an offence punishable under Section 494 IPC read with Section 109 IPC. The learned trial Judge committed an error in not framing such a specific charge against the second respondent and convicting the second respondent under the substantive provision alone namely under Section 494 IPC. Even forargument sake if it is assumed that the absence of framing of such a specific charge is only an irregularity not vitiating the proceedings,unless she is proved to have agreed for the marriage with the knowledge of the subsistence of the marriage between the appellant/complainant and the first respondent, she cannot beconvicted for the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC read with Section 109 IPC. In this regard, there is absence of clear evidence,imputing direct knowledge to the second respondent regarding the subsistence of first marriage of the first respondent with theappellant/complainant.

From Para 28, Sentencing:

28. Regarding the sentence, the submissions made on both sides are also taken into consideration. The maximum punishment prescribed under the said penal provision, namely 494 IPC is imprisonment of either description for 7 years and also fine. The trial Judge seems to have imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.100/- with a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one week. So far as the fine amount is concerned, the trial Court seems to have shown leniency. Substantive sentence awarded by the trial Court, as contended by the learned counsel for the first respondent, is some what harsh and the same needs reduction. This Court is of the view that reducing the substantive sentence to two years rigorous imprisonment and increasing fine to Rs.1000/- from Rs.100/- with a default sentence of one month simple imprisonment shall meet the ends of justice.

Saraswathi Vs Thirupathi and Anr on 24 Sep 2014

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/83802447/

https://www.lawyerservices.in/Saraswathi-Versus-Thirupathi-and-Another-2014-09-24

Rahim Pathan Vs State of Maharashtra on 04 Jun 2019

Posted on July 31, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Single bench judge of Bombay High Court held as follows, while acquitting a husband from the allegations of strangulating his wife.

From Para 16,

16. Perusal of aforesaid findings reflect that the learned Sessions Judge kept implicit reliance on the evidence of PW-2 Sayed Bandeali as well as recitals of the FIR, scribed by PW-9 Gauri More to arrive at the conclusion of guilt of the accused. The approach of learned Sessions Judge appears superficial and erroneous one. He drawn the conclusion that the death of victim was custodial death and it was imperative for the accused husband to explain how the deceased Rubina died. It reveals that the learned Sessions Judge overlooked or glossed over serious legal infirmities in this case. It was fallacious to appreciate that the shop of accused was located at a distance of 3. k.m. from his residential house. Therefore, there was ample opportunity for him to visit to the house from his shop for committing crime. This sort of speculative findings rests on assumption is totally impermissible and inadmissible in law. There is no evidence available on record about the last scene together of the accused in the company of deceased wife Rubina at the relevant time. In contrast, kith and kin of Rubina turned hostile and refused to cast aspersion on the appellant-accused for her homicidal death.

Rahim Pathan Vs State of Maharastra on 04 Jun 2019

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/141994995/

Prahlad Vs State of Rajasthan on 14 Nov 2018

Posted on January 16, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court says,

9. No explanation is forthcoming from the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to when he parted the company of the victim. Also, no explanation is there as to what happened after getting the chocolates for the victim. The silence on the part of the accused, in such a matter wherein he is expected to come out with an explanation, leads to an adverse inference against the accused.

Circumstantial Evidence…

10. We find that there is ample material against the accused to convict him for the offence under Section 302 IPC. All the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution stand proved so as to complete the chain of circumstances in respect of the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. The Trial Court and the High Court are, on facts, justified in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. However, we are unable to find reliable material against the accused for the offences under Section 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act.

Prahlad Vs State of Rajasthan on 14 Nov 2018

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/45763796/

https://www.legalauthority.in/judgement/prahlad-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-40094

Maheshwar Tigga Vs State of Jharkhand on 28 Sep 2020

Posted on October 31, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

The 3-judge bench again reiterated the usage and importance of Sec 313 CrPC, in this case where the parties very well knew they cannot get married due to their different religions and their parents are opposed to their marriage as they insisted that the marriage happen in a Temple Vs a Church !!!

From Para 6,

9. It stands well settled that circumstances not put to an accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be used against him, and must be excluded from consideration. In a criminal trial, the importance of the questions put to an accused are basic to the principles of natural justice as it provides him the opportunity not only to furnish his defence, but also to explain the incriminating circumstances against him. A probable defence raised by an accused is sufficient to rebut the accusation without the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt. This Court, time and again, has emphasised the importance of putting all relevant questions to an accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

Maheshwar Tigga Vs State of Jharkhand on 28 Sep 2020

Reena Hazarika Vs State of Assam on 31 Oct 2018

Posted on October 29, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice Navin Sinha held that procedure u/s 313 CrPC may very well be considered as a fundamental right as part of Rights available under Article 21 of the Constitution.

From Para 16,

16. Section 313, Cr.P.C. cannot be seen simply as a part of audi alteram partem. It confers a valuable right upon an accused to establish his innocence and can well be considered beyond a statutory right as a constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, even if it is not to be considered as a piece of substantive evidence, not being on oath under Section 313(2), Cr.P.C. The importance of this right has been considered time and again by this court, but it yet remains to be applied in practice as we shall see presently in the discussion to follow. If the accused takes a defence after the prosecution evidence is closed, under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. the Court is duty bound under Section 313(4) Cr.P.C. to consider the same. The mere use of the word ‘may’ cannot be held to confer a discretionary power on the court to consider or not to consider such defence, since it constitutes a valuable right of an accused for access to justice, and the likelihood of the prejudice that may be caused thereby. Whether the defence is acceptable or not and whether it is compatible or incompatible with the evidence available is an entirely different matter. If there has been no consideration at all of the defence taken under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in the given facts of a case, the conviction may well stand vitiated. To our mind, a solemn duty is cast on the court in dispensation of justice to adequately consider the defence of the accused taken under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and to either accept or reject the same for reasons specified in writing.

Citations : 2018 SCC ONLINE SC 2281, 2019 (1) AICLR 192 (SC), 2018 (3) JIC 75 (SC), AIR 2018 SC 5361

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/152892250/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5bd9d9c99eff430a1b47fd8c

Section 313 CrPC can well be considered as a constitutional right under Article 21; invocation of last seen theory sans facts and evidence does not shift onus on accused: SC

CrPC 313 – Power to examine the accused

Posted on May 1, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

313. Power to examine the accused.

(1) In every inquiry or trial, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court-

(a) may at any stage, without previously warning the accused, put such questions to him as the Court considers necessary;

(b) shall, after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence, question him generally on the case: Provided that in a summons- case, where the Court has dispensed with the personal attendance of the accused, it may also dispense with his examination under clause (b).

(2) No oath shall be administered to the accused when he is examined under sub- section (1).

(3) The accused shall not render himself liable to punishment by refusing to answer such questions, or by giving false answers to them.

(4) The answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial, and put in evidence for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence which such answers may tend to show he has committed.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: CrPC 313 – Power to examine the accused

Criminal Trial Procedure in India

Types of Criminal Trials

Sessions Trial

Warrant Trial

Summons Trial

Stages of Criminal Trial

1. Taking Cognisance

2. Appearance of Accused

3. Supply of Documents

4. Framing of Charges

5. Prosecution Evidence

6. Statement of Accused

7. Defence Evidence

8. Final Arguments

9. Judgment

Standard of Proof in Criminal Trials

Rights of the Accused During Trial

Importance of Criminal Trial Procedure

Conclusion

Related Legal Concepts

Jai Prakash Tiwari Vs State of Madhya Pradesh on 04 Aug 2022

Kalicharan and Ors Vs State of Uttar Pradesh on 14 Dec 2022

Saraswathi Vs Thirupathi and Anr on 24 Sep 2014

Rahim Pathan Vs State of Maharashtra on 04 Jun 2019

Prahlad Vs State of Rajasthan on 14 Nov 2018

Maheshwar Tigga Vs State of Jharkhand on 28 Sep 2020

Reena Hazarika Vs State of Assam on 31 Oct 2018

CrPC 313 – Power to examine the accused