Law and You >Procedural Laws > CrPC > Trial Before a Court of Session
The word ‘Trial’ is not defined in the code. The term ‘trial’ basically means the Court’s decision or a judicial judgement by the Court so as to decide the person’s guilt or innocence. It is an important process to determine whether the accused is guilty of an offence or not. The stage of Trial began after the framing of Charge and end with conviction or acquittal. Section 190 CrPC states those requirements that needs to be accomplished before proceedings can be started by the Magistrate, this statement basically means the power of the Magistrate to take knowledge of a case. Section 204 of CrPC basically provides Magistrate with the sole power of either to take the case into the consideration or to reject the case on some grounds. This section also determines the stage whether a case can enter the stage of trial or not. In this article, we shall discuss a trial before Court of Session.
In Surya Baksh Singh v. The State of U.P., (2014) 14 SCC 222 case, the Supreme Court said that a judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. The object of criminal trial is thus to render public justice by punishing the criminal.
In Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa, (2002) 8 SCC 381 case, the Supreme Court said that it is also important to remember that the trial should be concluded expeditiously before the memory of the witnesses fades out. If unmerited acquittals become the general rule, they tend to lead to a cynical disregard of the law. A miscarriage of justice may arise from the acquittal of the guilty no less than from the conviction of the innocent.
Presumption of Innocence of Accused:
Accused is presumed to be innocent till the charges against him are proved beyond reasonable doubt.
In Willie (William) Slaney v. State of M.P – AIR 1956 SC 116 case, the Supreme Court said that innocence of accused is presumed unless there is a statutory provision against him
In Kali Ram v. State of H.P., (1973) 2 SCC 808 case, the Supreme Court held that the burden of proving the guilt of the accused who is presumed to be innocent, is on the prosecution.
In Babu Singh v. State of Punjab, 1964 (1) Cri.L.J 566 (SC) case, the Supreme Court said that the principle of presumption of innocence is of cardinal importance. Guilt of the accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
In Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 13 SCC 657 case, the Supreme Court held that the presumption of innocence is a human right.
In Sheo Nandan Paswan v. State of Bihar AIR 1983 SC 194 case, the Supreme Court held that in criminal cases if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused is to be accepted.
Types of Trials:
Depending upon the gravity of offences and their punishments, CrPC divides criminal trials into two types:-
- Magisterial Trial
- Session Trial
The 1st schedule to the CrPC specifies the offences punishable under IPC, triable either in Magistrates court or in Court of Session. Based on seriousness of the offence criminal cases are categorised under two heads:- Summon cases Warrant cases.
Under CrPC Criminal Trials have been categorized into four divisions having different Procedure:-
- Session Trial:- Sec. 225-237
- Warrant Trial:- Sec. 238-250
- Summons Trial:- Sec. 251-259
- Summary Trial:- Sec. 260-265
Warrant trial (Sections 238 to 250):
It can further be divided into the following:
- On police report [sections 238-243] + [sections 248 to 250]
- Otherwise than on a police report [sections 244 to 250]
Trial before Court of Session:
Initial Steps in Trial:
A Court of Session is the court which deals with sessions criminal cases and passes any sentence including death at the division session. All cases punishable by more than 10 years of imprisonment are trial by session court.
According to S. 193 CrPC, Court of Session cannot take cognizance of an offence directly but the Court of Session is permitted to take cognizance of an offence without a case being committed to it if the Magistrate commits the case to it or if it acts as a special Court. A magistrate initially has to take cognizance of the offence even in serious criminal case under S. 190 and the right to exercise the power relating to Bail/Remand. Magisterial court thereafter on due examination of the seriousness of the offence commits the serious case to the Court of Session under S. 209 by sending case to the Court of Session by sending the record of the case along with the connected articles if it is triable exclusively by the Court of Session. Ss. 225-237 of CrPC deals with the procedure for a trial before a Court of Session.
Opening of the Case:
Under S. 225 CrPC, in every trial before a Session Court, the prosecution shall be conducted by a Public Prosecutor. Every accused person has a right to be defended by a counsel of his choice.
When the magistrate commits a case under S. 209 CrPC to the Court of Session and the accused appears or is brought before the Court, the prosecutor is required under S. 226 CrPC to open his case by explaining the charge against the accused and also states the evidence by which he will prove the guilt of the accused. At this stage, full details of the evidence need not be stated. The opening of the prosecution case must only be to matters which are necessary to follow the evidence.
Discharge:
According to S. 227 CrPC, the Court, on considering the documents and records of the case, and hearing the prosecution and the accused on the matter, shall discharge the accused if the Judge thinks that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. The Judge is required to record his reasons for discharging the accused. Thus, on discharge the trial comes to an end.
In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, AIR 1977 SC 1489 case, the Supreme Court held that the object of this Section is to require the Judge to give reasons for discharging the accused is to enable the superior court to examine the correctness of the reasons for which the Sessions Judge has held that there is or is not sufficient ground or not to proceed against the accused.
In Sushil Ansal v. State, 2002 CrLJ 1369 (Del) case, the Court held that an order of discharge may be passed only where Court is almost certain that there is no prospect of conviction and that time of the Court need not be wasted holding a trial. Before framing the charge, the Court need not undertake an elaborate enquiry. It only needs to consider whether no sufficient grounds exist for proceeding against the accused. If it is so found, the accused will be discharged, otherwise charge shall be framed and the accused will be put to trial. It can be said that discharge is the suspension of trial.
In Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, 1979 SCC (Cri) 609, 613 case, the Supreme Court laid down the following principals that Judges need to keep in mind while exercising the power of discharge:
- The Judge while considering the question of discharging the accused has undoubted power to weigh and scale the evidence for the purpose of finding whether the prima facie case against the accused has been made out or not.
- If a material in case shows grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be justified in framing charge and proceeding with the trial.
- The test to determine a prima facie case depends on case to case and a universal rule cannot be applied. In such cases the Judge has discretion to try the case.
- Court can in no circumstance act merely as post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and documents produced before it. The Judge should make a roving inquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence in conducting the trial.
Framing of Charge:
Under S. 228 CrPC, after considering the records of the case and the documents submitted along with it in evidence and hearing the prosecution and the defence, he thinks that there is a ground to presume that the accused has committed the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he will frame a charge against the accused
If the case is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session then the Judge may frame a charge against the accused and by order, transfer the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate or any other Judicial Magistrate of First Class.
In A.P. High Court v. Patharlauka Venkateshwarlu, 2002 CrLJ 3145 (AP) case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that at the time of framing of charge, there must be proper “hearing” and “consideration”, otherwise there is a possibility that the charges would be framed in a routine and mechanical manner which may ultimately lead to a situation where charges are framed either inadequately or inappropriately defeating the cause of justice.
In Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of West Bengal, (2000) 1 SC 722 case, the Supreme Court said that while exercising power under Section 228 CrPC, the Judge is not required to record his reasons for framing the charges against the accused.
In Bhawna Bai v. Ghanshyam, 26 November, 2019 case, the Court held that while framing charges, only the prima facie case has to be seen. At this stage, the Judge is not required to record a detailed order necessary to see whether the case is beyond reasonable doubt.
In Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar, (2008) 14 SCC 1 case, the Supreme Court ruled that the accused cannot produce any evidence at the stage of framing of charge and only those materials can be taken into consideration which is specified in Section 227 at the time of framing charges.
S. 228(2) CrPC says that when a case is exclusively triable by the Court of Session and the Judge frames a charge against the accused he has to read and explain the charge and ask the accused if he wants to plead guilty or claims to be tried. The Judge shall ensure that the charge read and explained to the accused have been fully understood by him before he is asked to plead guilty.
In Banwari v. State of UP, AIR 1962 SC 1198 case, the Supreme Court held that default in reading out or explaining the charge to the accused would not vitiate the trial unless it has been shown that non-compliance with Section 228 has resulted in prejudice to the accused.
Conviction on Plea of Guilty:
The accused may plead guilty under S. 229 CrPC or he can refuse to plead. The Court under Section 229 has the discretion to accept the plea of guilty. This discretion has to be applied with care and not arbitrarily. Also, the Judge has to ensure that the plea has been made voluntarily and not under any inducement otherwise it would be violative of the Provisions of the Constitution of India. When an accused pleads guilty then the Judge shall convict him as per his discretion and shall record the same. The Court cannot convict an accused on the basis of the plea of guilty where the offence is of a nature in which the punishment is death or imprisonment for life. The right of appeal of the accused is curtailed by Section 375 If the accused is convicted on the basis of his plea of guilty.
In Queen Empress v. Bhadu, (1897) ILR 19 All 119 case, the Allahabad High Court held that the plea of guilty must be in unambiguous terms otherwise such a plea is considered as equivalent to a plea of not guilty.
In Hasaruddin Mohommad v. Emperor, AIR 1928 Cal 775 case, the Calcutta High Court held that it will be reluctant for the Court to convict a person accused of an offence in which the punishment is death or life imprisonment on the basis of his plea of guilty.
Date for Prosecution Evidence:
Under S. 230 CrPC, the Judge will fix a date for the examination of witnesses if the accused has refused to plead guilty or does not plead guilty, or if he claims to be tried or if he is not convicted under Section 229. On an application of the prosecution, the Judge will issue a process for compelling the attendance of witnesses or to produce any document or any other thing.
Evidence for Prosecution:
When the date is so fixed (as mentioned under Section 230), The Judge will proceed to take all the evidence that may be produced by the prosecution in his support as per Section 231. The Judge has the discretion to permit cross-examination of any witness to be deferred until the other witness or witnesses have been examined or recall any witness for further cross-examination.
S. 137 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states that the examination of a witness shall be done by the party who calls him (prosecution) and it shall be called examination-in-chief. The cross-examination of the witness is done by the adverse party (defence). The re-examination is done subsequent to cross-examination by the prosecution
S. 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 lays down the order of examination of the witnesses. It says that the witness should be first examined in chief and then cross-examined. The examination in chief is done by the party who calls the witness and cross-examination is done by the adverse party. If the party who called the witness so desires, can re-examine the witness with the permission of the Court.
The examination-in-chief and cross-examination should be connected to the relevant facts of the case. However, the cross-examination does not need to be restricted to the facts to which the witness has testified in examination-in-chief. The re-examination shall be related to the explanation of the matters referred to in the cross-examination. If any new matter has arisen in the re-examination, the defence may further cross-examine the witness upon that matter. The objective behind re-examination is to offer the witness a chance to clarify any issues raised during the cross-examination and is therefore constrained only to those issues that were raised during the cross-examination.
Record of the Evidence (Ss. 276-280):
According to S. 276 CrPC, the evidence of each witness in all trials before a Court of Session shall be written down by the Presiding Judge himself or under his dictation or under his direction and superintendence by the officer of the Court appointed by the Judge in this behalf. Such evidence is usually taken down in a narrative form. The presiding Judge may also write it down in question-answer form as per his discretion. The evidence so taken down must be signed by the Judge and form a part of the record.
According to S. 278(1) CrPC, when the evidence of each witness is complete, it shall be read over in the presence of the accused or in his absence in the presence of his pleader and shall if necessary be corrected.
According to S. 279 CrPC, if any evidence is given in a language that the accused or his lawyer does not understand, it shall be interpreted to the accused or his lawyer in the language understood by him.
Arguments on Behalf of the Prosecution:
Under Section 314 the prosecutor has to submit his oral arguments after the conclusion of prosecution evidence and before any other steps in the proceedings are taken. It is also necessary to submit a memorandum, in brief, stating the arguments in his favour and a copy of that memorandum should be given to the opposite party.
Examination of the Accused:
Under Section 313 the Court may examine the accused after the evidence for the prosecution has been taken. The object of this Section is to give an opportunity to the accused of explaining any circumstances that seem to appear against him. After the witness for the prosecution have been examined and before the accused is called upon for his defence, Section 313(1)(b) requires the court to question the accused person generally on the case for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.
In Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 2622 case, the Supreme Court said that it is basic that the prisoner’s attention should be attracted to each inculpatory material in order to allow him to clarify.
In Asraf Ali v. State of Assam, 17 July, 2008 case, the Supreme Court held that, if a matter is significant against the accused and the conviction is proposed to be founded on it is correct and legitimate then the accused be examined concerning the issue and be given a chance to clarify it.
Acquittal of the Accused:
S. 232 CrPC gives an opportunity to both the prosecution and defence to address the court before calling upon the accused to enter upon his defence and to adduce evidence in support of it. The comments of the parties should be related to the evidence given by the prosecution and the examination of the accused. An accused may be acquitted if there is no evidence against him that he has committed the offence. Under Section 232 the Judge will record an order of acquittal in favour of the accused if he thinks that there is no evidence against the accused that he has committed the offence.
Evidence for the Defence:
The following points are to be taken into consideration while examining and recording evidence for the defence:-
- Examination of witnesses for the defence-Sec. 233(1)
- Written Statement of the accused- Sec. 233(2)
- Record of Evidence
Court Witnesses (if any):
As per Section 311, the Court can at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceedings, summon and examine any person as a court witness if his evidence appears to the court that it is essential for the just decision of the case.
Arguments:
Under Section 234, the prosecution shall sum up his case and the accused or his pleader shall be entitled to reply, and if any point of law is raised by the accused or his pleader, the prosecution may with due permission of the Judge make his submission with regard to point of law. Section 234 provides that after the evidence for the defence is concluded it is for the prosecution to sum up the case, and then the defence will be entitled to reply.
Judgment of Acquittal or Conviction:
After hearing the arguments of the prosecution and defence the Court will give judgment in a case. It is the stage where the accused is either acquitted or convicted. As per Section 235, a Judge will pronounce a judgment of acquittal or conviction after hearing the arguments of both the parties i.e., the prosecution and defence and on point of law (if any).
If the accused is acquitted, the acquittal will be done according to the procedure laid down under Section 232 and if he is convicted he shall be dealt according to Section 235.
After conviction, the Judge will hear the accused and then pass a sentence under Section 235. The Judge while passing a sentence shall try to gather all information that influences or relates to the sentence of the accused.
The provisions of Section 235(2) are mandatory and should be complied with strictly as held by the Court. The purpose of Section 235 is to offer a chance to the accused to adduce evidence of any mitigating circumstances in his favour. The accused should be explicitly asked with respect to what he needs to state about his sentence and whether he wants to give any proof on his side in order to mitigate his sentence.
In Narpal Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1977 SC 1066 case, the Supreme Court held that, in case of non-compliance with this provision, the case may be remanded to the Sessions Judge for retrial on the question of sentence only. It is not necessary for the Judge to hold a new trial altogether it will be restricted to the question of sentence only.
Procedure in Case of Previous Conviction:
Section 236 talks about previous convictions. It says that if an accused is charged with a convicted previously under Section 211(7) and he does not admit that he has been previously convicted with the alleged charge. The Judge after convicting the accused under Section 229 or Section 235 may call for evidence of the accused of such previous conviction and shall record findings, in case the accused is liable to enhanced punishment or punishment of a different kind. The proviso to this Section mentions that such charge shall not be read out by the Judge, nor shall the accused be asked to plead nor shall the prosecution refer to such previous conviction.
Procedure in Cases Instituted Under S. 199(2):
- Trial Procedure: A Court of Session taking cognizance of an offence under sub sec. (2) of sec 199 shall try the case in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant cases instituted otherwise than on a police report before a court of magistrate.
- In-Camera Trial: Every trial under this section shall be held in camera if either party thereto so desires or if the court thinks fit so to do.
- Compensation for Unfounded Accusations: If, in any such case, the court discharges or acquits all or any of the accused and is of the Opinion that there was no reasonable cause for making the accusation against them or any of them, it may try its order of discharge or acquittal, directs the person against whom the offence was alleged to have been committed to show cause why he should not pay compensation to such accused or to each or any of such accused, when there are more than one.
- Determining Compensation: The court shall record and consider any cause which may be shown by the person so directed and if it is satisfied that there was no reasonable cause for making the accusation, it may make an order that compensation to such amount not exceeding Rs.1000 it may determine, be paid by such person to the accused or to each or any of them.
- Recovery of Compensation: Compensation awarded under sub sec. (4) shall be recovered as if it were a fine imposed by a magistrate.
- No Exemption from Liability: No person directed to pay compensation under sub sec (4) shall be exempted from any civil or criminal liability in respect of the compliant made under this section.
- Right to Appeal: The person who has been ordered under sub sec. (4) to pay compensation may appeal to the High Court.
- Payment Timing: When an order for payment of compensation to an accused person is made, the compensation shall not be paid to him before the period allowed for the presentation of the appeal has elapsed, or if an appeal is presented, before the appeal has been decided.
Conclusion:
A trial before a Court of Session is a vital component of our legal system. It’s where serious criminal cases are heard, such as murder and rape, ensuring justice is served. The trial before a Court of Session guarantees that evidence is carefully examined, witnesses are heard and legal procedures are followed. The Court of Session, as a higher court, plays a crucial role in delivering a fair and impartial verdict. This not only protects the rights of the accused but also maintains public trust in the legal system.