DATE DOWNLOADED: Tue Sep 3 14:18:46 2024

SOURCE: Content Downloaded from HeinOnline

Citations:
Please note: citations are provided as a general guideline. Users should consult their preferred
citation format's style manual for proper citation formatting.

Bluebook 21st ed.

Rajini B. K., A Critical Analysis of Fair Trial under Indian Criminal Justice System,
3 INDIAN J.L. & LEGAL RSCH. 1 (2021).

ALWD 7th ed.

Rajini B. K., A Critical Analysis of Fair Trial under Indian Criminal Justice System,
3 Indian J.L. & Legal Rsch. 1 (2021).

APA 7th ed.

B. K., Rajini. (2021). critical analysis of fair trial under indian criminal justice
system. Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research, 3(2), 1-15.

Chicago 17th ed.

Rajini B. K., "A Critical Analysis of Fair Trial under Indian Criminal Justice
System," Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research 3, no. 2 (December 2021 - January
2022): 1-15

McGill Guide 9th ed.

Rajini B. K., "A Critical Analysis of Fair Trial under Indian Criminal Justice
System" (2021) 3:2 Indian JL & Legal Rsch 1.

AGLC 4th ed.

Rajini B. K., 'A Critical Analysis of Fair Trial under Indian Criminal Justice
System' (2021) 3(2) Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research 1

MLA 9th ed.

B. K., Rajini. "A Critical Analysis of Fair Trial under Indian Criminal Justice
System." Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research, vol. 3, no. 2, December 2021 -
January 2022, pp. 1-15. HeinOnline.

OSCOLA 4th ed.

Rajini B. K., 'A Critical Analysis of Fair Trial under Indian Criminal Justice
System' (2021) 3 Indian JL & Legal Rsch 1 Please note: citations
are provided as a general guideline. Users should consult their preferred citation
format's style manual for proper citation formatting.

Provided by:
Available Through: National Law School of India University

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and
Conditions of the license agreement available at
https://heinonline.org/HOL/License
-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.
-- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your license, please use:
Copyright Information
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume III Issue II ISSN: 2582-8878

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF FAIR TRIAL UNDER INDIAN

CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

Rajini B K, St. Joseph's College of Law

ABSTRACT

As far as criminal justice is concerned, any civilised society must provide a

basic set of fair trial rights for every accused individual, irrespective of their
standing. Criminal prosecution begins with a 'presumption of innocence,' and
guilt must be shown beyond a reasonable doubt, according to common law
and other nations. Using the Indian criminal justice system as a case study,
this article will examine the many elements of fair trial standards and the role
of defence lawyers in the pursuit of justice, as he is the only one in whom the
lonesome accused may put his faith.

Keywords: Criminal prosecution, Fair trial, criminal justice system and

defence counsel

1
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume III Issue II ISSN: 2582-8878

OUTLINE

International human rights law recognises the right to a fair trial, and many nations have
included it into their procedural laws. To safeguard persons against unlawful and arbitrary
restrictions or deprivations of their essential rights and freedoms, the most prominent of which
are the right to life and liberty of the person, the Constitution was enacted.

It is founded on natural justice concepts. However, the shape and application of natural justice
principles may differ from system to system depending on the current conditions of the
community involved In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, the formal
description of the idea of a fair trial was acknowledged as human rights jurisprudence
(hereinafter as UDHR). 1

Articles 10 and 11 of the UDHR protect the major elements of a fair criminal trial. A fair and
public hearing by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal constituted by law was
reiterated in Article 14 of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR).

To determine whether a trial is fair, some standards must be used. These requirements are
numerous, complicated, and continually A state's human rights treaties may incorporate them
as obligatory duties. As well as official papers, they can also be found in documents that
indicate the direction in which the law is growing, even though they aren't legally When it
comes to the Indian legal system, its constitution and procedural legislation embody the
international guarantee of a fair trial. 2

The Supreme Court of India recognised the growing boundaries of a fair trial in Zahira
Habibullah Sheikh and ors v. State of Gujrat and ors 3 and remarked that the principle of the
fair trial today informs and energises various sectors of the law. Numerous regulations and

1 Countries like U.S.A., Canada, U.K., India have adopted this norm and it is enshrined in their Constitution.
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights which sets
forth rights of accused person in relation to fair criminal trial. Section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, which is part of the Canadian Constitution's Charter of Rights, protects a person's basic legal rights
in criminal prosecution. Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights also provides detailed right to a
fair trial, which is discussed hereinafter.
2 Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the General Assembly on December 10, 1948. Article
10 of UDHR provides that "everyone is entitled in full equality to fair and public hearing by an independent and
impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations of any criminal charge against him." Article
11 extends the rights conferred by Article 10 and states that "everyone charged with a penal offence has the
right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the
guarantees necessary for his defence."
3 MANU/SC/1344/2006

2
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume III Issue II ISSN: 2582-8878

procedures reflect this. It is a continuous, ongoing development process that is constantly

adapted to new and changing circumstances and exigencies of the situations, which are
sometimes peculiar and related to the nature of the crime, the person involved, directly or
indirectly, social impart and societal needs, and even so many powerful balancing factors that
may come in the way of criminal justice administration.

In light of the Indian criminal justice system, this essay offers to critically analyse several
components of a fair criminal trial. The author will explore relevant criminal procedure statutes
as well as case law to attain this goal. Finally, this essay will discuss the role of the defence
attorney in the execution of these fundamental principles.

INSIGHT INTO THE FAIR TRIAL UNDER THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE,
1973

Adversary trial system:

The adversarial system based on the condemnatory technique is the system appropriated by the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hence referred to as the Code). In an adversarial system, the
opposing side, the prosecution, is responsible for the production of evidence, with the judge
serving as a neutral mediator between the parties.

In an inquisitorial trial system, on the other hand, the trial judge is responsible for the
production of evidence at trial, and it is the trial judge who chooses which witnesses will be
summoned at trial and who performs the majority of the questioning of witnesses. The
adversary system is based on the idea of reconciling public and private interests, namely, the
public interest in punishing the wrongdoer and preventing him from committing additional
crimes, and the private interest in preventing wrongful convictions and protecting his life and
personal liberty.

This criminal trial system presupposes that the state, on the one hand, would pursue the
wrongdoer using its investigative agencies and government counsels and that the wrongdoer,
on the other hand, will use the finest counsel available to dispute and refute the prosecution's
evidence. 6 However, a thorough examination of the Code reveals that it contains clauses that
contradict the adversarial trial system's rigorous adherence.

The Supreme Court of India held in Himanshu Singh Sabharwal v. State of M.P. and Ors.

3
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume III Issue II ISSN: 2582-8878

4that if the parties are not given a fair trial as required by the Code and the court has reason to
believe that the prosecuting agency or prosecutor is not acting properly, the court can exercise
its power under section 311 of the Code or section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to call
in for the trial.

Though the concept of an adversary trial system is diluted in the Code, it is still praised not
only for the protection it provides the accused but also for its competitive style of presenting
evidence and argument, which is thought to produce a more accurate result than an inquisitorial
system in which the judge monopolises evidence gathering. 9 To be an effective tool in the
administration of justice, the judiciary has also urged for the role of the presiding judge to be
that of a participant in the trial rather than a passive spectator.

Conjecture of innocence

In the administration of justice, the idea that an accused person is assumed innocent until his
guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt is crucial. Many Conventions include this concept
as a right of the accused person.

This idea is based on the legal adage that it is preferable for 10 offenders to escape than for one
innocent person to be wrongly condemned. The United States (hereinafter referred to as the
US) recognised this principle in the case of Coffin v. the United States sin 1895, stating that
"the principle of a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is the undoubted law,
axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of
our criminal law..."

The US Supreme Court has elevated the presumption of innocence to the status of a basic right
by including it in the "due process" clause. The presumption of innocence is a fundamental
component of the right to a fair trial that, among other things, entails that the prosecution bears
the burden of proof in a criminal trial and that the accused is given the benefit of the doubt.

This presumption appears to stem from the Latin legal concept of ei incumbit probatio qui
dicit, non qui negat, which states that the burden of evidence is with the one who claims, not
with the person who denies. The presumption of innocence is a legal tool employed by the law
to favour the accused, based on the legal assumption that the vast majority of individuals are

4 MANU/SC/1193/2008
s 156 U.S. 432 (1895).

4
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume III Issue II ISSN: 2582-8878

not criminals. The presumption implies that the state bears the full burden of proof when it
comes to the essential facts of the case, such as whether the crime accused was committed and
if the defendant was the person who committed the offence.

The defendant bears no burden of evidence about the crucial facts of the case. The defendant
is not required to testify, call witnesses, or provide any other evidence, and this decision cannot
be used against him if he chooses not to testify or submit evidence. The fact that the defendant
has been charged with a crime and is present in court and represented by counsel is not grounds
for the judge to assume anything negative about him. He must make his decision based only
on the facts presented at trial.

In the case of Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh 6, "It is undeniably true that wrongful
acquittals are unpleasant and undermine public faith in the legal system; much worse, however,
is the false conviction of an innocent person," the Supreme Court stated. The consequences of
an innocent person's conviction are far more serious, and their repercussions cannot be felt in
a civilised society." It is the prosecutors and defence counsel's duty, as well as the duty of all
public authorities involved in a case, to maintain the presumption of innocence by refraining
from prejudging the trial's outcome.

Autonomous, unbiased and experienced judges

The fundamental institutional structure that enables the enjoyment of the right to a fair trial is
that all criminal procedures must be conducted by a competent, independent, and unbiased
court. The separation of powers assumes that the judiciary is institutionally insulated against
excessive influence or intervention from the executive branch. The purpose of this clause is to
eliminate the potential for arbitrariness and prejudice if criminal charges were determined by a
political body or administrative agency.

In a criminal trial, because the state is the prosecuting party and the investigative machinery is
also a governmental appendage, the judiciary must be free of all suspicions of executive
influence and control, whether direct or indirect. Section 6 of the Code, which distinguishes
Executive Magistrates from Judicial Magistrates, is significant in this respect.

The Indian Constitution, under Article 50, puts a similar obligation on the state to take efforts
to separate the judiciary from the executive. The judge's behaviour is referred to as impartiality.

6 1973 SCC (Cri) 1048 at 1061.

5
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume III Issue II ISSN: 2582-8878

The most important aspect in determining a court's impartiality is its bias. When a judge has
previously participated in the proceedings in some capacity or has a personal stake in the
proceedings, it might be called into question prima facie.

However, section 479 of the Code nullifies this assumption by prohibiting a judge or magistrate
from trying a matter in which he is a party or otherwise personally involved. The location of
the trial and the public hearing A public hearing in an open court is also required for a fair trial.
As one of the basic aspects of the idea of a fair trial, Article 14(1) of the ICCPR also provides
the right to a public hearing.

In a democratic society, it is a right that not only political parties have, but also the entire
people. The right to a public hearing means that, unless the parties specifically request
otherwise, the hearing shall be held orally and openly. The court is also required, within
reasonable limits, to give notice regarding the time and location of the public hearing as well
as appropriate facilities for attendance by interested members of the public. When a decision
was verbally delivered in court, it was published, or it was made public through a combination
of those procedures, it was regarded to have been made public.

Section 327 of the Code makes provision for open courts for a public hearing but it also gives
discretion to the presiding judge or magistrate that if he thinks fit, he can deny the access of
the public generally or any particular person to the court. The provisions regarding the venue
or place of inquiry or trial are contained in sections 177 to 189 of the Code.

Every offence must be investigated or prosecuted by the court in whose local jurisdiction it
occurred. The trial at a different location would typically be more difficult for the parties in
terms of producing evidence, and it would also hurt defence preparation. In the case of Naresh
Sridhar Mirajkar v. the State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court stated that public
confidence in the administration of justice is of such importance that there can be no two
opinions on the broad proposition that courts must generally hear causes in open court and
allow public admission to the court to discharge their functions as judicial tribunals.

Acknowledgement of the charge

The accused individual is also given enough chance to defend himself, which is another feature
of a fair trial. However, if the accused individual is not apprised of the charges levelled against
him, this opportunity will be meaningless. However, the Code recognised the importance of

6
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume III Issue II ISSN: 2582-8878

this aim and stipulates, in simple language, that when an accused person is brought before a
court for trial, the specifics of the offence of which he is charged should be revealed to him. In
the event of significant offences, the court must draught a formal charge in writing, which must
then be read and explained to the accused.

Trial in the incidence of the accused

In criminal proceedings, the usual norm is that all investigations and trials should take place in
the presence of the accused. The basic concept is that the court should not proceed ex parte
against the accused individual in a criminal trial. It is also essential because it allows the
accused to fully comprehend the prosecution case and to become acquainted with the witnesses
against him, allowing him to evaluate their credibility at a later stage.

Though the Code does not expressly state that the accused must be present at the trial, it may
be deduced indirectly from rules that enable the court to waive the accused's physical
attendance in specific situations.

The Kerala High Court declared quite clearly in the case of H.R. Industries v. the State of
Kerala 7that there are circumstances in which the accused person's physical attendance might
be waived. "Personal presence is the rule in instances that are severe in character and include
moral turpitude," it was said. However, the exemption should be the rule in instances that are
technical, do not entail moral turpitude, and when the penalty is merely fine. The courts should
only require the accused to present when it is in his best interests to do so or when the court
believes his attendance is required for a fair resolution of the case. When the defendants are
women labourers, wage earners, or other busy males, the court should usually give personal
attendance exemption. The court should ensure that the accused who appears in court is not
subjected to excessive harassment."

Evidence to be taken in the existence of the accused

As a logical conclusion of sections 228, 240, 246 and 251 (where the particulars of the offence
must be communicated to the accused person), it is also necessary to take evidence in the
presence of the accused person during a trial. In this regard, Section 273 of the Code is crucial,
since it states that all evidence gathered during the trial must be taken in the presence of the

7 1973 Cri LJ 262 (ker) at 263

7
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume III Issue II ISSN: 2582-8878

accused.

This provision makes an exception to the rule, stating that if the accused's attendance is waived,
the evidence shall be taken in the presence of his pleader. The right established by this section
is supplemented by section 278, which states, among other things, that whenever the law
requires the accused or his pleader to be read the evidence of a witness after it has been
completed, the reading must take place in the presence of the accused or his pleader.

These rules allow the accused to prepare his counterarguments in advance of the evidence being
presented. The object of section 273 will not be fulfilled if any evidence is given in a language
not understood by the accused; therefore, section 279 imposes a mandatory duty on the court
that whenever any evidence is given in a language not understood by the accused, it must be
interpreted to him in open court in a language understood by him. Non-compliance with this
requirement, however, shall be seen as a minor irregularity that will not invalidate the trial
provided the accused person was not prejudiced or treated unfairly.

Cross-examine prosecution witnesses

According to Article 14(3)(e) of the ICCPR, the accused is entitled to examine, or has
examined, the witnesses against him in the determination of any criminal charge against him,
as well as to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same
conditions as witnesses against him. This requires that the parties be treated equally when it
comes to the introduction of evidence through witness examination. The prosecution must
notify the defence of the witnesses it plans to call at trial in a fair amount of time before the
trial so that the defendant has enough time to prepare his or her defence. Though the
prosecution bears the whole burden of proof in an adversarial trial system, and the law does
not require the accused to present evidence to show his innocence, the accused is allowed the
opportunity to refute the prosecution case or to prove any unique defence available to him. The
refusal of a magistrate to serve process to the witnesses listed by the accused person without
any valid explanation was sufficient to void the trial.

The court held in Badri v. State of Rajasthan 8that if a prosecution witness is not allowed to
be cross-examined by the defence on a material point relating to an earlier statement made
before the police, his evidence is untested by cross-examination and cannot be accepted as

s AIR 1976 SC 560

8
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume III Issue II ISSN: 2582-8878

corroborating his earlier statement.

Speedy trial

To earn the public's trust in the courts, a quick trial is required. Delay in the trial also frustrates
the goal of re-socialization of criminals. Unnecessary harassment occurs as a result of delayed
justice. Section 309(1) directs the courts to expedite trials and adjudicate cases as quickly as
possible. Though this characteristic is recognised as a component of a fair trial, the true
challenge is putting it into effect in a world where millions of cases are awaiting resolution in
subordinate courts.

This court held in Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. the State of Bihar, that fast trial is an essential
component of the 'reasonable just and fair' procedure provided by article 21, and that it is the
state's constitutional responsibility to put up a mechanism that ensures timely trial to the
accused. By claiming financial or administrative insufficiency, the state cannot escape its
constitutional responsibility. As the defender of the people's basic rights, it is this court's
constitutional duty to provide appropriate directives to the State so that it can carry out its
constitutional mission.

In Motilal Saraf v. State of J and K 9, the Supreme Court explained the meaning and relevance
of speedy trial and said that the concept of speedy trial is an integral part of article 21 of the
Constitution. The right to speedy trial begins with actual restraint imposed by arrest and
consequent incarceration and continues at all stages so that any possible prejudice that may
result from the impressible and avoidable delay from the time of the commission of the offence
till its final disposal, can be prevented.

Prohibition on double jeopardy (ne bis in idem)

The notion of 'autrefois acquit and autrefois convict' states that if a person is tried and
acquitted or convicted of one crime, he cannot be tried for the same crime or under the same
circumstances for any subsequent crime. The ICCPR further states in Article 14(7) that:

"No one should be subjected to a new trial or punishment for an offence for which he has
previously been definitively convicted or acquitted by each country's law and penal procedure."
This principle is enshrined in Section 300 of the Code, which states that those who have been

9 (cr1.) 774 of 2002

9
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume III Issue II ISSN: 2582-8878

convicted or acquitted for one crime should not be prosecuted again for the same crime or on
the same facts. This section expresses the common law principle of Nemo debet vis vexari,
which states that no person should be punished twice for the same offence. If the procedures
for which the accused is being tried are different and independent from the offence for which
the accused has previously been tried and convicted, the plea of double jeopardy is not relevant.

When we examine India's and America's constitutional positions on double jeopardy, we can
see that India's protection under article 20(2) of the Constitution is narrower than America's.
The protection against double jeopardy is provided by the American Constitution for a second
prosecution for the same offence, regardless of whether an accused was acquitted or convicted
in the first trial. However, under article 20(2), the accused is only protected against double
punishment if he or she has been not only "prosecuted," but also "punished," and is seeking to
be prosecuted a second time for the same offence.

The aid of counsel

In criminal trials, lawyers are requirements, not extras. The right to a fair trial entails two
things: a) the accused's right to choose his counsel, and b) the state's obligation to provide
counsel to the accused in certain circumstances. The right is recognised since, in most cases,
an accused individual lacks the legal knowledge and professional competence necessary to
defend him in a court of law when the prosecution is handled by a qualified and experienced
prosecutor.

When a criminal case is being prosecuted under U.S. law's 6th Amendment, an accused person
has a right to have a lawyer help him in his defence. To ensure that all destitute defendants
have a fair trial in Gideon v. Wainwright 10, the Supreme Court ruled that states must provide
counsel to all indigent defendants in criminal cases... Supreme Court of the United States
Justice Sutherland in Powell v. Alabamma"l , provided iconic language to the dilemma of the
unguided individual caught in a criminal procedure. It's worth quoting this passage.

So even the most well-educated and well-informed laypeople have little or no aptitude in the
science Generally speaking, a person who has been charged with a crime is unable to determine
for themselves if the indictment is good, it appears that he is not conversant with the regulations
he may be tried without a legitimate charge and found guilty on incompetent or irrelevant

10 372 U.S. 335 (1963).

"287 U.S. 45 (1932).

10
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume III Issue II ISSN: 2582-8878

evidence, or otherwise unreliable evidence. For his defence, he lacks both the ability and
understanding to do so Counsel is needed at every step of the case against him.

Even if he is not guilty, he risks being convicted if he does not have it since he does not know
how to prove his innocence..." In India, an arrested person's right to counsel is recognised as
a basic right under article 22(1), which states, among other things, that "no person shall be
denied the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice." This
constitutional duty is manifested in Sections 303 and 304 of the Code.

The right of an indigent person to be provided with a lawyer at the state's expense is an essential
ingredient of article 21, according to Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India12 , because no
procedure can be just and fair if legal services are not made available to an accused person who
is unable to pay for one. A distinction between article 21 of the Constitution and section 304
of the Code should be noticed in this context.

In every criminal case against an impoverished accused, whether the trial is before a Magistrate
or a Sessions Judge, as construed by the Supreme Court in Khatri v. State of Bihar1 3 , an
obligatory responsibility to offer free legal assistance arises. Only if the trial is before the
Sessions Court does the urgent duty emerge, and only if the State Government makes a
notification to that effect does the obligation exist in instances before the Magistrate. If we read
section 304 literally, no Magistrate's conviction may be overturned for failing to provide
impoverished people with free legal representation.

The M.P. High Court, on the other hand, overturned a Magistrate's conviction based on
evidence obtained without providing legal representation to the accused. The court attempted
to eliminate the anomaly caused by the Legislature in this way. Furthermore, the Constitution
(42nd Amendment) Act of 1976 put article 39-A into the Constitution, which mandates the
state to adopt appropriate laws to promote and provide free legal assistance.

This article also underlines that free legal assistance is an unalienable component of a
"reasonable, fair, and just" system because, without it, a person with economic or other
impairments would be denied access to justice. Parliament passed the Legal Services
Authorities Act of 1987 to fulfil this constitutional responsibility.

12 AIR 1978 SC 597

13 AIR 1981 SC 928

11
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume III Issue II ISSN: 2582-8878

The aforementioned Act's Section 12 offers legal assistance to the people named in it. Let us
not forget that legal assistance is necessary if the law is to not only speak but also to deliver
justice. Equal justice in action is what legal assistance is all about. It is, in reality, the social
justice delivery system. The court in Suk Das and Ors. v. Union Territory of Arunachal
Pradesh 14emphasised the importance of legal aid, ruling that "free legal help at state expense
is a basic right of a person accused of an offence that may jeopardise his life or personal
liberty."

The Magistrate or Sessions Judge before whom the accused appears, on the other hand, has a
responsibility to tell the accused that if he is unable to hire a counsel due to poverty, he is
entitled to free legal assistance at the expense of the State.

The conviction reached without informing the accused of their right to free legal assistance and
asking them if they wanted a lawyer to be provided at State expense, resulting in the accused
remaining unrepresented by a lawyer throughout the trial, is a violation of the accused's
fundamental right to counsel under article 21, and the trial must be declared void.

FAIR TRIAL AND THE PART OF A DEFENSE COUNSEL

In the views of many, the criminal defence lawyer symbolises all that is good about the legal
profession; in the eyes of others, he or she represents everything bad. The defender is the
innocent accuser's final line of defence against the tragedy of wrongful conviction, or we might
say that the defender is the accused person's last remaining friend in the world. He's also the
accuser's main tool for thwarting justice and avoiding punishment. It may sound strange or
contradictory, but the defence is indeed both the necessary condition for justice and the
adversary of justice.

In the course of his work, an advocate is only aware of one person in the world: his client. His
first and only responsibility is to save that customer by all means and at whatever cost to other
people, including himself. Our Code's criminal justice system sets prosecution against the
defence and necessitates partisanship on both sides. Because the prosecution will present the
state's case, the defendant must focus only on the accused's case and make it as strong as
feasible.

However, the degree of counsel's involvement in the pre-trial process, particularly before the

14 AIR 1986 SC 991

12
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume III Issue II ISSN: 2582-8878

start of judicial screens, is the subject of heated debate. The tension between individual rights
and society's desire for security, which criminal justice administration seeks to reconcile, is
arguably more obvious at this point in the criminal process than at any other.

It's worth noting that, unlike the other stages of the criminal process, this first stage, which
occurs between the invocation of the process against a person and his appearance before a
judicial officer, is marked by the absence of a neutral third party to ensure procedural fairness,
justice, and impartiality in decision-making.

One of the most important safeguards for the accused against arbitrary and coercive conduct is
the delegation of decision-making authority to an impartial judge who presides over and
oversees the proceedings. However, at this time, the triangle condition is noticeably absent.
The investigative officers, who are under direct pressure to "solve" crimes and "bring criminals
to justice," and whose neutrality is therefore put under the most strain. The presence of lawyers
in this circumstance may encourage the accused.

Second, an accused who is free on bail has the benefit of preparing and organising his case by
contacting and communicating with witnesses, as well as gathering evidence in his favour. A
lawyer is required to get bail and the assistance of a client who is free aids the counsel in
preparing his case. At the trial stage, good engagement by counsel might considerably minimise
the gap between the number of prosecutions launched and the number of convictions obtained.
He can prevent the criminal procedure from being applied in a fast and harsh manner against
an innocent person, saving him the difficulty, embarrassment, and money that would otherwise
follow from a lengthy investigation. He can rescue the innocent person from the trouble, shame,
and expense of a lengthy and protracted trial by preventing premature and harsh use of the
criminal proceedings against him.

During the trial stage, counsel must ensure that the prosecutor provides full disclosure; that all
evidence relevant to the accused's case is disclosed or produced; that all legal issues relevant
to the accused's case are fully explored and properly adjudicated; that all evidence tendered by
the prosecution was collected by constitutional standards; and that all legal issues pertinent to
the accused's case are fully explored and properly adjudicated.

Defence counsel has a professional obligation to provide all morally permissible arguments
on behalf of the accused to guarantee that the accused is only convicted if the prosecutor can
prove guilt. If the accused is found guilty based on all of the evidence, the defence attorney

13
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume III Issue II ISSN: 2582-8878

must ensure that the penalty is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of
culpability of the accused, and he may also show those conditions in the pre-sentence hearing
that may assist the accused in reducing the severity of the punishment.

The appeal procedure is meant to provide the last opportunity to dispute the techniques and
practices used by criminal justice administrators earlier in the process, as well as the legitimacy
and fairness of their decisions. Because of the victim's and witnesses' desire for vengeance, a
false identification might occur. The witnesses may have lied or were influenced by the police.
While these and other comparable factual errors may lead to the defendant's innocence, flaws
in the interpretation and implementation of the relevant legal provision may lead to grave
injustice.

The presence of counsel at this stage is required to present all that is indigent to the appellate
court, as well as to demonstrate the trial court's legal mistakes or arbitrariness.

Conclusion

After examining the many articles of the Code, it can be concluded that, while the Indian
judicial system is adversarial, the inquisitorial system's reflections cannot be dismissed. When
dealing with these two types of systems, the Code employs a balanced method. Other essential
components of a fair trial may be found in various articles of the Code, and their observance
can be demonstrated.

But it's the execution of these regulations that's the actual problem. One example is the
provision for a speedy trial, which seeks to expedite the resolution of cases. However, the truth
is that around 1.7 lakh people under trial are languishing in jail for petty offences (though the
total number of people under trial is around 2.45 lakh) despite having served the majority of
the maximum sentence prescribed. 15In these circumstances, counsel's role in a triangle
adversary criminal system is critical, because the prosecution, which represents the state, is in
a stronger position because it has the backing of investigating agencies.

15 The delay in the disposition of cases and the detention of the impoverished accused before trial is one of the
most overlooked areas of the criminal justice system. It is undesirable that the criminal trial be postponed until
all parties involved have forgotten about the offence. The foregoing facts contradict the court's dicta in the
Maneka Gandhi case, in which Justice Krishna Iyer and Justice Bhagwati stated that the legal system should be
"just, fair, and reasonable," rather than oppressive and fantastical. Obviously, a legal system for depriving a
person of his liberty cannot be rational, fair, or just unless it provides for a fast trial to determine the individual's
guilt. Procedural law is supposed to speed up the process of justice, yet it frequently does the opposite.

14
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume III Issue II ISSN: 2582-8878

The accused, on the other hand, can rely exclusively on his counsel, who, as a last resort, can
safeguard him from arbitrary and repressive conduct.

References
1. Encyclopaedia of Crime and Justice (2nd ed.) (2004). Vol. 1 & 3.
2. Code of Criminal Procedure (1973).
3. Indian Evidence Act (1872).
4. Constitution of India (1950). Ali Adan AF (2002).
5. 'Right of the Defendant: A Speedy Trial in the Criminal Proceedings', Criminal Law
J. 108, (Apr.) J-87.
6. Prasanna
7. R (1968). 'Counsel in the Criminal Process', 10, J. Indian Law Inst. Prashanth V,
Balaji S (2000).
8. 'Presumption of Innocence in Criminal Law', Criminal Law J. 106, (Sep.) J-129. Arora
BL (2007).
9. Law of Speedy Trial in India, (Universal Law Publishing, Delhi, 2006).
10. Basu DD (2007). Commentary on the Constitution of India, (Wadhwa & Co., Nagpur,
8t ed.).
11. Pillai KNC (ed.) (2008). R.V. Kelkar's Criminal Procedure, (Eastern Book Co.,
Lucknow, 5 th ed.).
12. Neeraj Tiwari, 'Fair trial vis-a-vis criminal justice administration: A critical study of
Indian criminal justice system', Journal of Law and Conflict Resolution Vol. 2(4), pp.
66-73, April 2010
13. Kunal Basu, "Criminal proceedings and the conceptions of a fair trial", (2016)
14. T. Mallikarjuna Rao, "General Principles of Fair Trial", available at 1st Topic.pdf
(ecourts.gov.in)

15