Reforms in Criminal Trials - Part II

1. In the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat, (2001) 3 SCC 1, practices with respect to objections regarding questions to be put to witnesses were enunciated and it was directed that the Court must record answers to all questions, regardless of objections. However, this may lead to prolonged and lengthy cross examination, and more often than not, irrelevant facts having no bearing on the charge or the role of the accused, are brought on record, which often result in great prejudice.

2. The Hon’ble Court considered the mandate of Bipin Shantilal (supra) and observed that under Section 148 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Court has the power to decide when questions shall be asked and when witnesses can be compelled to answer. The Court, further, observed that under Section 149-154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the basic rules of cross-examination have been provided and in order to ensure that the record is not cluttered with irrelevant details that could be distracting and prejudicial to the accused, the Presiding Office should decide objections to questions, during the course of the proceeding or failing it at the end of the deposition of the concerned witness. It may have a salutary effect of preventing frivolous objections. Thus, the case of Bipin Shantilal (supra) was modified in above-stated terms.

3. It was also argued before the Court that though from time to time, directions have been issued to conduct day-to-day hearing of criminal trials, yet the same is not possible due to non-availability of witnesses in many cases. Thus, in order to redress this grievance, the Hon’ble Court observed 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 hearing may take place immediately after the framing of the charge.” In this hearing, the court should consider the total number of witnesses, and classify them accordingly. A date could also be fixed for admission and denial of documents in relation to the accused. The schedule of recording of witnesses should then be fixed, by giving consecutive dates. Each date so fixed, should be scheduled for a specific number of witnesses.

4. In relation to other modalities contained in “Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2020”, the Court observed that the Draft Rules of 2021 are annexed with the instant Order and all High Courts and States should take expeditious and appropriate steps to incorporate the same as part of the Rules governing the Criminal Trials. Further, relevant amendments need to be carried out in Police Manuals of various states to bring them in synchrony with the Draft Rules of 2021.

Opinion

In my considered view, these proceedings that were taken up by the Hon’ble Supreme Court will, if implemented properly, provided a much-needed reform that was long due in criminal proceedings and trials. The Criminal Trials are marred by delay and lethargy leading to loss of faith in the judicial system. The changes suggested by the Court and the Draft Rules are calibrated as at on the one hand, they are bringing much-needed reforms to the system and on the other hand, such changes are easy to implement and are in complete synchrony with CrPC and existing Criminal Procedure Laws.

I hope that the High Courts as well the State Governments take up this issue in a serious manner and swiftly implement the Draft Rules of 2021 so that expeditious criminal trials become a reality in India.