FAIR TRAIL VS CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION SYSTEM –A CRITICAL ANALYSIS BY: NAKSHATHRA.KK & Mr. JITHESH

FAIR TRAIL VS CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION SYSTEM –A CRITICAL ANALYSIS

AUTHORED BY: NAKSHATHRA.KK[1]

CO-AUTHOR: Mr. JITHESH[2]

ABSTRACT:

Each civilized country must make them thing basic in their criminal justice administration system that is minimum fair trial rights to each blamed individual regardless for his or her status. It is settled in customary law and furthermore embraced by different nations too that criminal prosecution begins with 'presumption of innocence' and the blame must be demonstrated past sensible uncertainty. This paper proposes to follow different dimensions of fair  trial benchmarks under Indian criminal justice administration system and will likewise center around the part of resistance guide during the time spent accomplishing closures of equity, as he is the just individual on whom the lonesome  accused  can rest his trust.

Keywords: civilized country, customary law, fair trail rights, presumption of innocence, criminal prosecution.

INTRODUCTION:

The right to fair trial is a standard of universal human rights law and furthermore embraced by numerous nations in their procedural law. It is intended to shield people from the unlawful and subjective decrease or hardship of their fundamental rights and flexibilities, the most conspicuous of which are the privilege to life and freedom of the individual. The idea of reasonable trial depends on the essential standards of natural justice. This article proposes to basically look at different parts of reasonable criminal trial in the light of Indian criminal justice administration system. In spite of the fact that the shape and routine with regards to the standards of common equity may fluctuate from framework to framework based on winning states of the general public concerned. The formal record of the idea of reasonable trial has been acknowledged as human rights statute in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 (hereinafter as UDHR). The real highlights of reasonable criminal trial are safeguarded in Article 10 and 11 of the UDHR. Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (hereinafter as ICCPR) reaffirmed the objects of UDHR and gives that

"Everybody should be qualified for a reasonable and open hearing by an equipped, autonomous and unbiased court set up by law."

The principles against which a trial is to be evaluated as far as reasonableness are various, complex, and continually developing. They may constitute restricting commitments that are incorporated into human rights bargains to which the state is a gathering. In any case, they may likewise be found in reports which, however not formally official, can be taken to express the course in which the law is developing. To the extent Indian legitimate framework is concerned, the global guarantee of reasonable trial is particularly reflected in its protected plan and additionally its procedural law. Indian legal has likewise featured the crucial part of reasonable trial in catena of cases.

To accomplish, this paper will talk about applicable arrangements of criminal method as well as different case laws. Finally, this article will likewise toss light on the part of the resistance advise in connection to the authorization of these essential certifications.

AIM OF THE STUDY: To provide justice, and assurance of fair trail which is the first requirement of dispensation of justice.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

 The research methodology used in the project is the non-emprical type of research.The source from where the data has been collected are the secondary sources .The secondary sources are used  for   referring the case law and collecting the material .material is also collected from print and electronic media like various search engines and internet databases from the collected  material and information research proposes to critically analyze the topic of the study and tries to teach the core aspects of study.

PROBLEM:

Whether adopting reforms in criminal justice administration will lead to fair trail?

OBJECTIVES:

1. To study whether the provision to have fair and speedy trail under criminal procedure code are followed or not?
2. To study the legal provisions and policies made till date for speedy and fair trail
3. To study various pronouncement made in india and abroad
4. To assess the present system for speedy justice
5. To study the evolution and development in speedy and fair trail

HYPOTHESIS:

Null hypothesis :

The existing legal system is not sufficient for the fair trail proceedings in the trail.

Alternative hypothesis:

The system is adopted by the Indian justice administration is adversary in nature and one of the components of fair trail is the speedy trail which seeks quick disposal of cases but there are around 1.7 lakh under trail which are lanquished in jail.

LEGISLATION:

1. Article 50 of the Indian Constitution likewise forces comparative obligation on the state to find a way to isolate the legal from the official. Fair-mindedness alludes to the direct of the judge. Inclination is the conclusive factor for finding out a court's unprejudiced nature. It can, in this manner, be by all appearances brought being referred to when a judge has participated in the procedure in some earlier limit or when he has an individual stake in the procedures

1. Article 14(1) of ICCPR,1996 ensures the privilege to an open hearing, as one of the basic components of the idea of a reasonable trial.  It is a privilege not having a place with the gatherings just, but rather likewise to the overall population in a vote based society. The privilege to an open hearing implies that the hearing ought to generally speaking is directed orally and freely, without a particular demand by the gatherings to that impact. The court is, entomb alia, obliged to make data about the time and scene of people in general hearing accessible and to give sufficient offices to participation by intrigued individuals from the general population, inside sensible breaking points. A judgment is considered to have been made open either when it was orally articulated in court or when it was distributed, or when it was made open by a blend of those strategies.

1. Article 14(3)(e) of the ICCPR states that in the assurance of any criminal allegation against the charged, he is qualified for inspect, or has analyzed, the observers against him and to get the participation and examination of observers for his sake under an indistinguishable conditions from witnesses against him. This orders the gatherings be similarly approached regarding the presentation of confirmations by methods for cross examination of witnesses. The arraignment must advise the resistance of the witnesses it plans to call at trial inside a sensible time preceding the trial so the respondent may have adequate time to set up his/her barrier. However, in ill-disposed trial framework, the weight of demonstrating the blame is completely on the indictment and the law does not require the denounced to lead proof to demonstrate his guiltlessness, yet the charged is given a privilege to negate the arraignment case or to demonstrate extraordinary protection accessible to him. The refusal with no legitimate avocation by a judge to issue procedure to the witnesses named by the blamed individual was sufficient to vitiate the trial.

1. In section 300 of the Code which gives that people once indicted or absolved not to be striven for a similar offense or on similar realities for some other offense. This condition typifies the custom-based law lead of nemo debet vis vexari which implies that no man ought to be placed twice in danger for a similar offense. Supplication of twofold risk isn't relevant in the event that the procedures for which the denounced is being attempted are unmistakable and isolate from the offense for which the charged has just been attempted and sentenced

1. Article 39-A was likewise embedded in the Constitution according to Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, which requires that the state should pass reasonable enactments for advancing and giving free legitimate guide. This article additionally stresses that free legitimate administration is an unalienable component of 'sensible, reasonable and only' strategy for without it a man experiencing monetary or different handicaps would be denied of the open door for securing equity. To satisfy this protected command the Parliament established Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

JUDICIARY:

Zahira habibullah sheikh and ors vs st of Gujarat[3]

the Supreme Court of India watched the advancing skylines of reasonable trial and expressed that the standard of reasonable trial currently advises and empowers numerous zones of the law. It is reflected in various guidelines and practices. It is a steady, continuous improvement process persistently embraced to new and changing conditions and exigencies of the circumstances, curious now and again and identified with the idea of wrongdoing, individual included, straightforwardly or working behind, social confer and societal needs and even such a significant number of capable adjusting factors which may come in the method for organization of criminal equity.

This rule was perceived by the United States (hereinafter as US) path in 1895 on account of Coffin v. united States[4] that 'the rule that there is an assumption of guiltlessness for the denounced is the undoubted law, proverbial and rudimentary, and its authorization lies at the establishment of the organization of our criminal law...' It is significant that the US Supreme Court has raised the assumption of honesty to the level of a basic ideal by understanding it into the 'due process' provision.

In H.R. Businesses v. state of Kerala[5] , the Kerala High Court flawlessly expressed that the conditions in which the individual nearness of the charged individual should be possible away. It was opined that: "In cases which are egregious in nature including moral turpitude, individual participation is the run the show. However, in cases which are specialized in nature, which don't include moral turpitude and where the sentence is just fine, exception ought to be the run the show. The courts should demand the presence of the blamed just when it is his enthusiasm to show up or when the court feels that his quality is important for viable transfer of the case. At the point when the blamed are ladies workers, breadwinners and other occupied men, court ought to generally speaking award exclusion from individual participation. Court should see that undue badgering isn't caused to the charged showing up under the watchful eye of the court."

In Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. state of Bihar[6] this court proclaimed that quick trial is a fundamental element of 'sensible just and reasonable' technique ensured by article 21 and it is the established commitment of the state to set up such a method as would guarantee fast trial to the charged. The state can't stay away from its protected commitment by arguing money related or authoritative deficiency. As the watchman of the crucial privileges of the general population, it is protected commitment of this court to issue important bearings to the State for making positive move to accomplish this sacred command.

 In Motilal Saraf v. state of J&k[7] the Supreme Court clarified the importance and pertinence of rapid trial and said that the idea of expedient trial is a basic piece of article 21 of the Constitution. The privilege to expedient trial starts with real limitation forced by capture and subsequent detainment, and proceeds at all stages so any conceivable partiality that may come about because of impressible and avoidable postponement from the season of commission of the offense till its last transfer, can be averted.

CONCLUSION:

In the wake of breaking down various arrangements of the Code it can be presented that however the framework embraced by the Indian equity organization is foe in nature yet the impressions of inquisitorial framework can likewise be not nullified. The Code furnishes an adjusting approach while managing these two sorts of frameworks. To the extent other essential segments of reasonable trial are concerned, the adherence of these segments can be seen in various arrangements of the Code. In any case, the main problem accompanies the usage part of these arrangements. One of the case is arrangement for fast trial which looks for speedy transfer of cases yet actually around 1.7 lakh under trials mulling in prison who are reserved for unimportant offenses (however the aggregate number of under trials are roughly 2.45 lakh) and regardless of having served a noteworthy piece of the endorsed most extreme sentence.In these conditions the part of insight in an enemy criminal framework, which is triangular in nature, is exceptionally vital in light of the fact that in such cases the arraignment, which speaks to state, is in a more grounded position since it has additionally the help of researching organizations. Then again, the blamed individual can exclusively depend on his insight who, being the final resort for him can spare him from the self-assertive and severe activity.

REFERENCES:

1. http://www.academicjournals.org/article/article1379856371_Tiwari.pdf
2. http://epgp.inflibnet.ac.in/epgpdata/uploads/epgp_content/law/05._criminal_justice_administration/12._fair_trial/et/8179_et_et.pdf
3. Zahira' Habibulla H. Sheikh and Anr. V. State of Gujarat and Ors. 2004 (5) SCC 353
4. Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895)
5. Helen Rubber Industries Kottayam ... vs State Of Kerala And Ors. 1973 CriLJ 262
6. Aljaz v. Desouza AIR 1956 Bhopal 11 : 1956 Cri LJ 373
7. Karanjfa v. Chellappan Filial 1960 Ker LT 643 : 1960 Cri LJ 1597 
8. Zain Yar Jung v. Dr. Raghotam. AIR 1957 Andh Pra 468 : 1957 Cri LJ 935
9. Ganpat Singh v. Zora AIR 1951 Aimer 6 : 1951 Cri LJ 1606
10. Dorabashah v. Emperor AIR 1926 Bom 218 : 27 Cri LJ 440 
11. Hussainara Khatoon & Ors vs Home Secretary, State Of Bihar, ... on 9 March, 1979 AIR 1369, 1979 SCR (3) 532
12. Moti Lal Saraf vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Another on 29 September, 2006
13.  Srinivas Gopal v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh (1988) 4 SCC 36 
14.  Spears,D 2008, “ The Criminal Justice System And The Rule Of Law”, precedent ,84.pp. 18-21.
15. Mathew Robinson And Marian Williams , “The Myth Of A Fair Criminal Justice System”, volume 6- No.1- spring 2009. 
16. Administration of criminal justice system in india : law teacher nov 2013 administering of criminal justice system in india (online) (accessed 2nd june 2018)
17. Criminal justice reforms in india in need of the hour published in crlj , vol 119 , part 1358, feb 2013, pg 29-32 by anita yadav
18. Right of ‘speedy and fair trail’ of accused : overview by Tanya singh , pramod kumar singh.
19. https://www.latestlaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Concept-of-Fair-Trial-by-Y-SrinivasavRao.pdf
20. http://shodh.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/4267/3/03_liteature%20review.pdf

[1] Ba.bl.,(hons) Vth year,  Saveetha School of Law, Saveetha institute of medical and technical sciences. kknakshathra@yahoo.com

[2] Assistant Professor of Law, Saveetha School of Law, Saveetha institute of medical and technical sciences. Advjitheshps1@gmail.com

[3]  2004 (5) SCC 353

[4] 156 U.S. 432 (1895)

[5] 1973 CriLJ 262

[6] AIR 1369, 1979 SCR (3) 532

[7] 29 September, 2006