TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTERIZATION:-

1)
2)
3)
4)
5)

Introduction
Right to Fair Trial- a Human Right
Constitutional Provision
Provisions Under CrPC
Conclusion
BIbliography

INTRODUCTION
The concept of fair trial has been adopted by almost all the countries in their respected field
of laws. The purpose behind the establishment of fair trial is to protect the common man
from unfair means of any injustice and violation of fundamental right. The principals of
natural justice are the ultimate basis of fair trial system. As far as country like India is
FAIR TRIAL IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
1

concerned the concept of fair trial is envisaged under the constitutional law and other
procedural law.
Everyone has an inbuilt right to be dealt fairly in a criminal trial. Denial of a fair trial is as
much injustice to the accused and is to the victims and the society. The fair trial of criminal
offence consists not only in technical observance of the frames and norms of law but also in
recognition and just application of its principles in substance, to find out the truth and
prevent miscarriage of justice.

Aims & Objectives-:

The aims and objectives of the project is to1) Know about the right to fair trial
2) Study the relevant provisions under CrPC

Hypothesis-:
According to the researcher the hypothesis of the project is that, even after so many
provisions and rights related to fair trial only few people are able to face a fair trial.

Research Methodology-:
The method of writing adopted is Doctrinal one including both descriptive and Analytical

Sources Of Data-:
The researcher has mainly relied upon primary as well as secondary sources e.g. Books,
Articles, Internet websites.

Right to a Fair Trial- a human right

FAIR TRIAL IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

2

The right to fair trial is an essential right in all countries respecting the rule of law. A trial in
these countries that is deemed unfair will typically be restarted, or its verdict voided. Various
rights associated with a fair trial are explicitly proclaimed in Article 10 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and
Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights, as well as numerous other
constitutions and declarations throughout the world. There is no binding international law
that defines what is or is not a fair trial, for example the right to a jury trial and other
important procedures vary from nation to nation.
The right to fair trial is very helpful in numerous declarations which represent customary
international law, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). 1 Though the
UDHR enshrines some fair trial rights, such as the presumption of innocence until the
accused is proven guilty, in Articles 6, 7, 8 and 11, 2 the key provision is Article 10 which
states that: "Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an
independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of
any criminal charge against him."3
Some years after the UDHR was adopted it was decided that the right to a fair trial should be
defined in more detail in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
The right to a fair trial is protected in Articles 14 and 16 of the ICCPR which is binding in
international law on the 72 states that have ratified it.4 Article 14(1) establishes the basic
right to a fair trial, article 14(2) provides for the presumption of innocence, and article 14(3)
sets out a list of minimum fair trial rights in criminal proceedings. Article 14(5) establishes

1 Doebbler, Curtis (2006). Introduction to International Human Rights Law. CD

Publishing. p. 108
2 Alfredsson, Gudmundur; Eide, Asbjorn (1999). The Universal Declaration of
Human Rights: a common standard of achievement. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
p. 225
3 http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml
4 Doebbler, Curtis (2006). Introduction to International Human Rights Law. CD
Publishing. p. 107
FAIR TRIAL IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
3

the right of a convicted person to have a higher court review the conviction or sentence, and
article 14(7) prohibits double jeopardy.5

Article 14(1) states that: "All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the
determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at
law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and
impartial tribunal established by law. The press and the public may be excluded from all or
part of a trial for reasons of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society,
or when the interest of the private lives of the parties so requires, or to the extent strictly
necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would
prejudice the interests of justice; but any judgement rendered in a criminal case or in a suit at
law shall be made public except where the interest of juvenile persons otherwise requires or
the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes or the guardianship of children."6
The Geneva Conventions guarantee combatants the right not to be put on trial for fighting in
a war - unless they commit a war crime (a grave breach) or other crime (e.g., captured
behind enemy lines out of proper uniforms or insignia while carrying out espionage or
sabotage operations). Most held under the Geneva Conventions are not accused of a crime
and therefore it would be a war crime under the Geneva Conventions to give them a trial.
This protection against getting a trial is fully consistent with human rights law because
human rights law prohibits putting people on trial when there is no crime to try them for.
The Geneva Conventions however guarantee that anyone charged with a war crime or other
crime must get a fair trial.
The right to a fair trial is enshrined in articles 3, 7 and 26 of the African Charter on Human
and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR).7
5 Alfredsson, Gudmundur; Eide, Asbjorn (1999). The Universal Declaration of
Human Rights: a common standard of achievement. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
pp. 225226.
6 "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights". Office of the United
Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.
7 Doebbler, Curtis (2006). Introduction to International Human Rights Law. CD
Publishing. p. 108.
FAIR TRIAL IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
4

The right to a fair trial is also enshrined in articles 5, 6 and 7 of the European Charter on
Human Rights and articles 2 to 4 of the 7th Protocol to the Charter.8
The right to a fair trial is furthermore enshrined in articles 3, 8, 9 and 10 of the American
Convention on Human Rights.9
The right to equality before the law is sometimes regarded as part of the rights to a fair trial.
It is typically guaranteed under a separate article in international human rights instruments.
The right entitles individuals to be recognised as subject, not as object, of the law.
International human rights law permits no derogation or exceptions to this human right. 10
Closely related to the right to a fair trial is the prohibition on ex post facto law, or retroactive
law, which is enshrined in human rights instrument separately from the right to fair trial and
can not be limited by states according to the European Convention on Human Rights and the
American Convention on Human Rights11.

8 Doebbler, Curtis (2006). Introduction to International Human Rights Law. CD

Publishing. p. 108.
9 Doebbler, Curtis (2006). Introduction to International Human Rights Law. CD
Publishing. p. 108.
10 Doebbler, Curtis (2006). Introduction to International Human Rights Law. CD
Publishing. p. 110
11 Doebbler, Curtis (2006). Introduction to International Human Rights Law. CD
Publishing. p. 108.
FAIR TRIAL IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
5

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS:

Fair trial is based on principle of natural justice. Constitution of India also provide for fair
trial of the accused. It has been universally accepted in the present day of civilization that as
a human value no person accused of any offence should be punished unless he has been
given a fair trial and his guilt has been proved in such trial. The notion of fair trial cannot e
explained in absolute terms. Fairness is relative concept and therefore fairness in criminal
trial could be measured only in relation to the available time and resources and the
prevailing human values in the society. Article 21 provides the protection of life and
personal liberty. According to this article no person shall be deprived of his liberty except
according to procedure established by law. As a broad principle, it may be stated that the
liberty of a person should not be taken away without just cause. The detention of accused
person prior to or pending trial is likely to cause direct or indirect obstructions in preparation
of his defence and would not therefore be quite conductive to a fair trial. 12 If the presence of
accused cannot be procured otherwise then he should by all means be arrested and detained.
Article 20 of the constitution provides protection in respect of conviction for offences.
According to this article no person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a
12 See,. R.V.Kelkar : outlines of criminal procedure, (1977) at p.33.
FAIR TRIAL IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
6

law in force at the time of the commission of the offence, nor be subjected to penalty greater
than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the
commission of the offence. It also provides protection from double jeopardy. It further
provides that no accused person shall be witness against himself. This is also safeguarded
under section 25 and 26 of Indian evidence Act by not accepting confession made before
police officer and police custody.
Art 22(1), says, "No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being
informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right
to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.". It embodies two
distinct rights - the right to be told of the grounds of arrest and the right to consult a legal
practioner of his choice. The second right of consulting a legal practitioner of his choice
actually depends on the first right of being told about the grounds of arrest. If the person
doesn't know why he is being arrested, he cannot consult a legal practioner meaningfully.
In Harikishan vs State of Maharashtra13 , SC held that the grounds of arrest must be
communicated to the person in the language that he understands otherwise it would not
amount to sufficient compliance of the constitutional requirement.
Art 22(2) that gives a fundamental right to the arrested person that he must be produced
before a magistrate within 24 hours of arrest. It says, "Every person who is arrested and
detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of
twenty-four hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place
of arrest to the court of the magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody
beyond the said period without the authority of a magistrate."
In Khatri (II) vs State of Bihar 14 has strongly urged upon the State and its police to ensure
that this constitutional and legal requirement of bringing an arrested person before a judicial
magistrate within 24 hours be scrupulously met. This is a healthy provision that allows
magistrates to keep a check on the police investigation. It is necessary that the magistrates

13 AIR 1962
14 1981 SCC, SC
FAIR TRIAL IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
7

should try to enforce this requirement and when they find it disobeyed, they should come
heavily upon the police.
Further, in Sharifbai vs Abdul Razak15, SC held that if a police officer fails to produce an
arrested person before a magistrate within 24 hours, he shall be held guilty of wrongful
detention.
Article 22(4) provides that no law providing for preventive detention shall authorize the
detention of a person for a longer period than three months unlessa

An advisory body consisting of persons who are, or have been, or are qualified to be
appointed as, judges of high court has reported before the expiration of the said
period of three months that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for such detention:
Provided that nothing in this sub-clause shall authorize the detention of any person
beyond the maximum period prescribed by any law made by the parliament under
sub-clause (b) of clause 7; or

Such person is detained in accordance with the provisions of any law made by
parliament under sub-clause (a) and (b) of clause 7.

Section 22 (5) when any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law
providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be,
communicate to such person the ground on which the order has been made and shall afford
him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order.
Section 22 (6) provides that nothing in clause (5) shall require the authority making any such
order as is referred to in that clause to disclose facts which such authority considers to be
against the public interest to disclose.
Article 22(7) parliament may by law prescribea

The circumstances under which, and the class or classes of cases in which, a person
may be detained for a period longer than three months under any law providing for
preventive detention without obtaining the opinion of an Advisory Board in
accordance with the provisions of sub clause (a) of clause ( 4 );

15 AIR 1961
FAIR TRIAL IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
8

the maximum period for which any person may in any class or classes of cases be

detained under any law providing for preventive detention; and

the procedure to be followed by an Advisory Board in an inquiry under sub clause
(a) of clause ( 4 ) Right against Exploitation.

In D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal16 Supreme Court held the following requirements to
be followed in all cases of arrest or detention till legal provisions are made in that behalf as
preventive measures:
(1) The police personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the interrogation of the arrestee
should bear accurate, visible and clear identification and name tags with their designations.
The particulars of all such police personnel who handle interrogation of the arrestee must be
recorded in a register.
(2) That the police officer carrying out the arrest of the arrestee shall prepare a memo of
arrest at the time of arrest and such memo shall be attested by atleast one witness, who may
be either a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality from
where the arrest is made. It shall also be counter signed by the arrestee and shall contain the
time and date of arrest.
(3) A person who has been arrested or detained and is being held in custody in a police
station or interrogation center or other lock-up, shall be entitled to have one friend or relative
or other person known to him or having interest in his welfare being informed, as soon as
practicable, that he has been arrested and is being detained at the particular place, unless the
attesting witness of the memo of arrest is himself such a friend or a relative of the arrestee.
(4) The time, place of arrest and venue of custody of an arrestee must be notified by the
police where the next friend or relative of the arrestee lives outside the district or town
through the Legal Aid Organisation in the District and the police station of the area
concerned telegraphically within a period of 8 to 12 hours after the arrest.
(5) The person arrested must be made aware of this right to have someone informed of his
arrest or detention as soon as he is put under arrest or is detained.
(6) An entry must be made in the diary at the place of detention regarding the arrest of the
person which shall also disclose the name of the next friend of the person who has been
16 D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal, AIR1997SC610
FAIR TRIAL IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
9

informed of the arrest and the names and particulars of the police officials in whose custody
the arrestee is.
(7) The arrestee should, where he so requests, be also examined at the time of his arrest and
major and minor injuries, if any present on his/her body, must be recorded at that time. The
"Inspection Memo" must be signed both by the arrestee and the police officer effecting the
arrest and its copy provided to the arrestee.
(8) The arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by a trained doctor every 48
hours during his detention in custody by a doctor on the panel of approved doctors appointed
by Director, Health Services of the concerned State or Union Territory. Director, Health
Services should prepare such a penal for all Tehsils and Districts as well.
(9) Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest, referred to above, should be
sent to the illaqa Magistrate for his record.
(10) The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation, though not
throughout the interrogation.
(11) A police control room should be provided at all district and state headquarters, where
information regarding the arrest and the place of custody of the arrestee shall be
communicated by the officer causing the arrest, within 12 hours of effecting the arrest and at
the police control room it should be displayed on a conspicuous notice board.

FAIR TRIAL IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

10

PROVISIONS UNDER CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE

The system adopted by the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred as the
Code) is the adversary system based on the accusatorial method. In adversarial system
responsibility for the production of evidence is placed on the opposing party that is
prosecutions with the judge acting as a neutral referee between the parties. By contrast, in
inquisitorial trial system responsibility for the production of evidence at trial is the job of the
trial judge and it is the trial judge who decides which witnesses will be called at trial and
who does most of the questioning of witnesses. The adversary system is more or less based
on the notion of reconciliation of public and private interests, that is public interest in
punishing the wrongdoer and prevents him to commit more crimes and private interest in
preventing the wrongful convictions and protect his life and personal liberty. This system of
criminal trial assumes that the state, on one hand, by using its investigative agencies and

FAIR TRIAL IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

11

government counsels will prosecute the wrongdoer who, on the other hand, will also take
recourse of best counsels to challenge and counter the evidences of the prosecution.17
But if we take a close look of the Code then we will find that there are some provisions
which negate the strict adherence of the adversarial trial system.
BASIC FAIR TRIAL CRITERIA
The standards against which a trial is to be assessed in terms of fairness are numerous,
complex, and constantly evolving.

They

may constitute binding obligations that are

included in human rights treaties to which the state is a party. But, they may also be found
in documents which, though not formally binding, can be taken to express the direction in
which the law is evolving.
Provisions as regard arrest are contained in section 41 to 60A of crpc, 1973. In this chapter
many of the provision relates to the fair trial. Section 4 provides that a police may arrest
without warrant hence he has reason to believe that offence has been committed by the
person and arrest is necessary as specified in this section. Section 41 B provides that the
police shall inform the family member of the arrested person. Section 41-D provides that the
arrested person shall be entitle to meet an advocate of his choice during interrogation,
though not through out interrogation. Section 49 provides that no person shall be subjected
to more restrain than is necessary to prevent his escape. Section 50 of this code provides that
the accused must be informed of the full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or
all other grounds for such arrest. It further provides that if the offence is bailable one then
the accused must be informed of his right to furnish bail and he may arrange for sureties on
his behalf. Section 50A makes an obligation of person making the arrest to inform about the
arrest and place where the accused person is detained to the nominated person. Section 56
provides that the accused person shall be taken to the magistrateor officer incharge of a
police station ithout reasonable delay. Section 57 provides that the reasonable time should
be within 24 hours exclusive of the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to
the magistrates court.
Provisions as regard bail are contained in Sections 436-450 of Cr.P.C., 1973. The bail
provisions aim at securing the release of a person who has been put behind bars as an under
17 K.N.C.Pillai (ed),R.V.Kelkars Criminal Procedure , at 336(5 th edn.)
FAIR TRIAL IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
12

trial or charged with some bailable and non-bailable offences. The purpose is that a person
need not be kept in the police lock-ups without being charged with any offence under the
Criminal law. There are no hard and fast rules regarding grant or refusal of bail. Each case
has to be considered on its own merits. The matter always calls for judicious exercise of
discretion by the courts. Where the offence is of a serious nature the court has to decide the
question of grant of bail in the light of such considerations as the nature and seriousness of
the offence, the character of evidence, circumstances that are peculiar to the accused,
reasonable possibility of presence of the accused not being secured at the trial, the
reasonable apprehension of a witness being tampered with, the larger interest of the public or
such similar other considerations. In the bailable cases, the grant of bail is a matter of
course. It may be given either by the police officer in-charge of the police station having the
accused in his custody or by the court. The release may be ordered on the accused executing
a bond and even without surety. In non-bailable cases, the accused may be released on bail
either by the court or a police officer, but no bail can be granted where the accused appears
on reasonable grounds to be guilty of an offence punishable either with death or with
imprisonment for life. This rule does not apply to a person under 16 years of age, a woman,
or a sick or infirm person. No doubt, liberty of a person must be zealously safeguarded by
the court, nonetheless, when a person is accused of a serious offence like murder, and his
successive bail applications are rejected on merit there being prima-facie material, the
prosecution is entitled to place correct facts before the court; liberty of the accused on bail
should not be construed as the sole concern of the court. The Supreme Court of India has,
however, held that though a person accused of a bailable offence is entitled to be released on
bail pending his trial, if his conduct subsequent to his release is found to be prejudicial to a
fair trial, he forefeits his right to be released on bail and such forefeiture can be made
effective by invoking the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
Section 438 of Cr.P.C.,1973 provides a unique provision for grant of "anticipatory bail." the
necessity for granting anticipatory bail arises mainly because sometimes influential persons
tried to implicate their rivals in false cases for the purpose of disgracing or for other
purposes by getting detained in jails for some days. Apart . . . from false cases where there
are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to
abscond, or otherwise misuse his liberty while on bail, there seems no justification to require

FAIR TRIAL IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

13

him first to submit to custody, remain in prison for some days and then apply for bail." 18.
Appeal, Reference, Review and Revision
The criminal justice system provides measures for preferring appeal, reference, review or
revision in order to avoid miscarriage of justice.19 If the finding reached by the trial court is
based on plausible reasons or the trial court's findings cannot be said to be unreasonable, the
appellate court should be slow in disturbing the trial court's finding of fact even if it was
possible to reach a different conclusion on the record because the trial judge has the
advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses and the initial presumption of innocence in
favour of the accused is not weakened by his acquittal. The Constitution of India also
provides that an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court for any judgement,or final order of the
high court in a criminal proceeding, if the High Court certifies that the case involves a
substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. However, where the
High Court refuses to give such a certificate, the Supreme Court may, on being satisfied that
the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution,
grant special leave to appeal from such judgement, or final order or determination or
sentence. It further states that an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgement,
final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court, if the High Court (a) has on
appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to death or (b)
has withdrawn for trials before itself any case from any court subordinate to its authority and
has on such trials convicted the accused person and sentenced him to death or (c) certifies
that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court.
Pre-Trial
It is the statutory right of the police to carry out the investigation of a crime before a
prosecution is launched, and it cannot be interfered with by the courts.20 It may be observed
that the functions of the judiciary and of the police are complimentary, not overlapping; the
court's function begins when a charge is preferred before it and not until then. The accused
18 See 41st report of the Law Commission of India
19 374-412 of CrPc, 1973.
20 154-176 of CrPc, 1973
FAIR TRIAL IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
14

person may be kept in the custody of the police for a period of 15 days, thus enabling the
police to complete the investigation of the crime. However, a total period of the custody may
be up to 60 days when the investigation relates to a serious offence or 90 days when the
investigation relates to an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or
imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years,and such period shall be construed judicial
custody and not police custody. If the police cannot complete the investigation within 90
days then the accused person shall be released on bail.
The investigation process begins on an information given to a police officer and such
information is known as the First Information Report. The First Information Report is an
important document in a criminal trial and may be put in evidence to support or contradict
the evidence of the person who gave the information. The objective of the First Information
Report is to set the criminal law in motion and from the point of view of the investigating
agency to obtain information about the alleged criminal activities so as to be able to take
suitable steps to trace and to bring to book the guilty.
The criminal trial process makes it clear that trial should be fair and as such it has been
emphasised that confession made to police shall be non-admissible; confession extracted by
torture or third degree method can be pleaded at trial. Confession as to the commission of an
offence must be voluntary and recorded before a Magistrate or a respectable person. The
Cr.P.C, and Indian Evidence Act a proprio vigro state that a confession made by an accused
person to a police officer is inadmissible in evidence; if a person in police custody desires to
make a confession he must do so in the presence of a Magistrate. A Magistrate shall record
the confession if he is satisfied that it is voluntary.
An accused kept either in the custody of police or judicial custody has to be provided with
humane and hygienic living conditions during lock-ups. This is so because the accused is
presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty. Jail Manuals prescribe that there ought not be
overcrowdedness in the cells; the undertrials should be provided with recreational facilities.
Trial Stage
A criminal trial begins with the filing of a case. The Cr.P.C, states that "no court shall take
cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation and the period of
limitation shall be:
FAIR TRIAL IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
15

(a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only;

(b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one
year;
(c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
but not exceeding three years;
(d) the period of limitation in relation to offences which are punishable with more severe
punishment shall be determined by the court if the offence is punishable with imprisonment
exceeding three years or severe punishments.
The object is to prevent the parties from filing cases after a long time as a result of which
material evidence may vanish and also to prevent the filing of vexations and belated
prosecutions.
Every trial begins with the charges and every charge shall state the offence with which the
accused is charged.21 The charge shall give the accused full notice of the offence charged
against him. The purpose of the charge is to tell the accused person as precisely and
concisely as possible of the matter with which he is charged and must convey to him with
sufficient clarity and certainty what the prosecution intends to prove against him and of
which he has to clear himself.
A criminal trial may take place either before a Magistrate or Court of Sessions as the nature
of the case may be.22
A. Mode of Taking and Recording Evidence
It is obligatory that evidence for prosecution and defence should be taken in the presence of
the accused.23 A trial is vitiated by failure to examine the witnesses in the presence of the
accused; mere cross examination in the presence of the accused is not sufficient.
21 211-224 of CrPc, 1973.
22 225-265 of CrPc, 1973.
23 272-299 of CrPc, 1973.
FAIR TRIAL IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
16

Speedy Trials
It is imperative that every criminal trial should be completed speedily, expeditiously and
efficiently. The Supreme Court of India in August 1996 has expressed that the trial court
should not waste its time when it is fairly satisfied that there is no prospect of the case
ending in conviction. If the trial court judge is almost certain that the trial would only be an
exercise in futility or a sheer waste of time, it is advisable to truncate or snip the proceedings
at the stage of framing the charge under relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C., and discharge the
accused.
Though it is imperative to complete the trial speedily, expeditiously and efficiently yet there
are irritations with the criminal trial process during pre-trial as well as trial stages. For
instance, the police which are to complete the investigation of crime within the prescribed
time limits consume much more time than prescribed by law. This results in the languishing
of the undertrials in jails for a longer period than the period of the conviction. The adversary
procedure is also responsible for the delayed trials and there are studies which tell that delay
is a riddle wrapped in mystery inside an enigma. Indecisiveness is the cause of both delay
and unpleasantness. It could be avoided if detention on false grounds is eased; adjournments
just on demands are discouraged; strike and cessation by an advocate is given a full stop.

CONCLUSION
One Principal object of criminal law is to protect society by punishing the offenders.
However, justice and fair play require that no one be punished without a fair trial. A person
might be under a thick cloud of suspicion of guilt, he might have been even caught redhanded, and yet he is not to be punished unless and until he is tried and adjudged to be guilty
by a competent court. In the administration of justice it is of prime importance that justice
should not only be done but must also appear to have been done. Further, it is one of the
cardinal principles of criminal law that everyone is presumed to be innocence unless his
guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt in a trial before a impartial and competent court.
FAIR TRIAL IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
17

Therefor it becomes absolutely necessary that every person accused of crime is brought
before the court for trial and that all the evidence appearing against him is made available to
the court for deciding as to his guilt or innocence.
After so many provisions and laws people are still not having a fair trial. In order to have
adequate insights into fair trial functionally rather than structurally it is imperative to have
an in-depth study of trial courts. Such a study would dispel the complaint against the judicial
system of the country. As such complaints are based on facts that, "higher courts are right
because they are superior, not superior because they are right." The trial judge, in fact,
handles the bulk of judicial business. It may however, be not conceived that the justices do
not want the people to understand the judicial function; unfortunately, there are relatively
few people to understand, interpret and explain the court's role in wider terms. In a sense
people know less about the case than they do about the Parliament or the political parties.
Trial judges handle the bulk of judicial business because they preside over trials among other
things including management of case processing, approval of plea bargaining, supervision of
the settlement process, monitoring remedial decrees--they as such experience the drama of
the adversary process. This inevitably influences judicial decision-making and behaviour. A
trial judge is not a mechanical scale or computer but is a human being. So the trial judges
vary in their respective qualities of intelligence, perspective, attentiveness and other mental
and emotional characteristics of operation while they are listening to and observing
witnesses. Fatigue of the trial judge, that is, after how many cases the trial judge cannot
function at ease and the cases heard and tried in fatigue may hamper or affect the fair trial,
may be one assumption amongst others to make an in-depth study of trial courts in order to
have an assessment of fair trial in criminal proceedings that is functional.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books-:

R.V.Kelkar, criminal procedure 3rd edition, 1993

Ratanlal Dhirajlal, criminal procedure, 3rd edition, 1998
Chaudhary , criminal procedure, 3rd edition, 1995
Dr. N.V. Paranjape, The Code of Criminal Procedure,2nd Edition, Central Law

Agency, Allahabad.
S.N.Misra, The Code of Criminal Procedure,14th Edition, Central Law Publication,
Allahabad
FAIR TRIAL IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
18

The code of criminal procedure code, 1973

The constitution of India

Internet source:

http://www.ksl.edu.np/cpanel/pics/concept_of_fair_trial_awani.pdf
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/fair_trial.pdf
www.humanrights.coe.int/Intro/eng/GENERAL/trial.htm

FAIR TRIAL IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

19

FAIR TRIAL IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

20