Você está na página 1de 13

PROJECT REPORT

ON
CRPC
VARIOUS STAGES OF TRIAL AT THE COURT
OF SESSION
SUBMITTED BY: YASH SURA
196/13
SECTION D

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I express my heartfelt gratitude towards my sub
teacher from showing the confidence in me and
giving me an opportunity to take up this project so I
could enhance my sphere of knowledgement. I would
also like to thank panjab university for providing us
with such esteemed faculty and giving us an
opportunity to be a part of this university.
In the end I would like to thank lord almighty and
parents for being my constant back and helping me
pass all my endeavors with flying colors.
Submitted to : Ms. Amritpal Kaur

Submitted by: Yash Sura

TRIAL AT COURT OF SESSION


225. Trial to be conducted by Public Prosecutor. - In every trial before a Court
of Session, the prosecution shall be conducted by a Public Prosecutor.
226. Opening case for prosecution. - When the accused appears or is brought
before the Court in pursuance of a commitment of the case under Section 209, the
prosecutor shall open his case by describing the charge brought against the
accused and stating by what evidence he proposes to prove the guilt of the
accused.
When the accused appears or is brought before the court in pursuance of a
commitment of the case under section 209, the prosecutor shall open his case by
describing the charge brought against the accused and stating by what evidence he
proposes the guilt of the accused.(Sec.226) In other words, the public prosecutor
should give the brief summary of the evidence and the particulars of the witnesses
by which he proposes to prove the case against the accused person. It is the duty of
the trial court to secure the attendance of the accused. It can not acquit the accused
on the ground that the prosecution failed to bring the accused. It ios not necessary
for a Public Prosecutor in opening the case for the prosecution to give full details
regarding the evidence including the documents by which he intends to prove his
case.
Discharge
Dealing with the principles relating to the discharge of an accused even before the
commencement of the trail, the Supreme Court in a recent decision enunciated the
relevant ingredients for the application of the provision. The Supreme Court

examined the earlier cases on the issue to declare the law as;
If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as
distinguished from grave suspicion, the Trial Judge will be empowered to
discharge the accused and at this stage he is not to see whether the trial will end in
conviction or acquittal. Further, the words not sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused clearly show that the Judge is not a mere Post Office to frame
the charge at the behest of the prosecution, but has to exercise his judicial mind to
the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made
out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact, it is not necessary for the Court to
enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of
evidence and probabilities which is really the function of the Court, after the trial
starts. At the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in
order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against
the accused. In other words, the sufficiency of ground would take within its fold
the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced
before the Court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances
against the accused so as to frame a charge against him.
Section 227 provides as under;
227. Discharge.If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the
documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused
and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and
record his reasons for so doing.
On this issue, the Supreme Court also observed;
21) As discussed earlier, Section 227 in the new Code confers special power on the
Judge to discharge an accused at the threshold if upon consideration of the records
and documents, he find that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against
the accused. In other words, his consideration of the record and document at that
stage is for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether or not there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused. If the Judge comes to a conclusion that
there is sufficient ground to proceed, he will frame a charge under Section 228, if
not, he will discharge the accused. This provision was introduced in the Code to
avoid wastage of public time which did not disclose a prima facie case and to save

the accused from avoidable harassment and expenditure.


22) In the case on hand, though, the learned Trial Judge has not assigned detailed
reasons for dismissing the discharge petition filed under Section 227, it is clear
from his order that after consideration of the relevant materials charge had been
framed for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and because of the
same, he dismissed the discharge petition. After evaluating the materials produced
by the prosecution and after considering the probability of the case, the Judge
being satisfied by the existence of sufficient grounds against the appellant and
another accused framed a charge. Whether the materials at the hands of the
prosecution are sufficient or not are matters for trial. At this stage, it cannot be
claimed that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the appellant and
discharge is the only remedy. Further, whether the trial will end in conviction or
acquittal is also immaterial.
228. Framing of charge. - (1) If, after such consideration and hearing as
aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the
accused has committed an offence which (a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may, frame a charge
against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, [or any other Judicial Magistrate of the first class and direct the
accused to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or, as the case may be, the
Judicial Magistrate of the first class, on such date as he deems fit, and thereupon
such Magistrate] shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure for the trial
of warrant- cases instituted on a police report;
(b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against
the accused.(2) Where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b) of sub-section
(1), the charge shall be read and explained to accused, and the accused shall be
asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried.
The purpose of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code is to ensure that the court should
be satisfied that the accusation made against the accused person is not frivolous
and that there is some material for proceeding against him. The stage prior to the
framing of charges is not expected to be a dress rehearsal of a trial,or in other

words, the details of all materials which the prosecution will produce or rely on
during the stage of the trial are not expected to be produced or referred to before
the judge at the time of the opening of prosecution. Nor is it obligatory on the part
of the court to give reasons for its framing charges.
It has been held in Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijay Satardekar that ordinrily , there is
no scope for the accused to produce any evidence in support of the submissions
made on his behalf at the stage of framing of charge and only such material as
indicated in Section 227 CrPC can be taken into consideration by thr cort at the
time of framing the charge. In some very rare cases, the cout would be justified in
looking into the material produced by the defence at the time of framing of the
charges, if such material convincingly establishes that the whole prosection
version was totally absurd, preposterous or concocted.
Sections 227 and 228 are interrelated and should be read together. The general
principles discussed above in regard to the discharge of the accused person under
Section 227 are quite relevant and applicable while considering the provision in
Section 228(I) relating to the framing of charge against the accused.
Where the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Session and a charge has
been framed in writing against the accused as mentioned above in Section 228(I),
the charge shall be read and explained to the accused. The accused shall then be
asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence or claims to be tried.[S.228(2)]
229. Conviction on plea of guilty. - If the accused pleads guilty, the Judge shall
record the plea and may, in his discretion, convict him thereon.
Legal provisions regarding conviction on plea of guilty under section 229 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Section 229 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that if the accused pleads
guilty, the judge shall record the plea and may, in his discretion, convict him
thereon.
The accused should plead by his own mouth and not through his counsel or
pleader. Any admission made by his pleader is not binding on him.

The accused can plead guilty under Section 229, or he can claim to be tried under
Section 230, or he can refuse to plead. The plea of not guilty is not recognized by
the Code and it amounts to a claim to be tried.

It would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution to induce or lead an accused


to plead guilty under a promise or assurance that he would be let off lightly and
then in appeal or revision to enhance the sentence.

The Court should not act upon the plea of guilty in serious cases like murder but
should proceed to take the evidence as if the plea had been one of not guilty and
should decide the case upon the whole evidence including the accused plea.

A person is taken to have pleaded guilty only if he has pleaded guilty to the facts
constituting ingredients of the offence without adding anything external to it. If he
pleads guilty to the violation of a provision of law, that plea is not valid plea at all.

Section 229 confers a discretionary jurisdiction on the Court to accept a plea of


guilty and to act upon it. This discretion has to be exercised with care and
circumspection and on sound judicial principles to do justice to the accused.

230. Date for prosecution evidence. - If the accused refuses to plead, or does not
plead, or claims to be tried or is not convicted under Section 229, the Judge shall
fix a date for the examination of witnesses, and may, on the application of the
prosecution, issue any process for compelling the attendance of any witness or the
production of any document or other thing.
The provision of this section applies when the accused does not plead or refuses to
plead guilty or may claim to be tried or he may pie id guilty but even then the
judge in his discretion may not convict him and prefer to proceed with the trial. In

all these cases the Judge will fix a date for the examination of witnesses and if
necessary issue process to compel attendance of witnesses or production of
documents or other things etc. The persons not interrogated by the police under
Section 161, CrPC may also be summoned by the Court as witnesses.

In the context of Sections 230, 233 (3) and 247, Cr. P.C. the Allahabad High Court
held that Court cannot direct or require the accused to pay the expenses of
witnesses sought to be examined by him in his defence.
231. Evidence for prosecution. - (1) On the date so fixed, the Judge shall proceed
to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution.
(2) The Judge may, in his discretion, permit the cross-examination of any witness
to be deferred until any other witness or witnesses have been examined or recall
any witness for further cross-examination.
The prosecution must produce all the evidence essential to the unfolding of the
prosecution case. It is not necessary that every witness must be examined even
though his evidence may not be very material or it is known that he has been won
over or terrorized.

Only material witnesses considered necessary for unfolding the prosecution case
need be produced for examination before the Court. Where a witness has been
declared hostile by the prosecution only that part of his Evidence which is in
conformity with the other evidence may be relied upon.

Witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief then, if the adverse party so desires,


they may be cross-examined and thereafter, if the party calling them so desires,
they may be reexamined. The trial Judge may, in his discretion permit the crossexamination of any witness to be deferred until any other witness or witnesses
have been examined or recall any witness for further cross- examination.
Where the Court finds that the prosecution has not examined witnesses for reasons
not tenable or proper, the Court would be justified in drawing an inference adverse

to the prosecution.

The evidence under this section is ordinarily taken down in the narrative form but
the presiding judge may, in his discretion, take down or cause to be taken down
any part of such evidence in the form of question and answer as laid down in
Section 276 (2) of Cr.P.C. After the evidence of each witness is completed, it shall
be read over to him in the presence of the accused if he is present or in the
presence of his defence counsel.

In Lalu Mam v. State of West Bengal, the Calcutta High Court has held, It is true
that Section 231 (2) gives a discretion to permit the cross-examination of any
witnesses to be deferred until any other witness or witnesses have been examined,
but that does not mean in any way that the accused has a right to ask for deferring
the cross- examination in a blanket way on the plea that otherwise the prosecution
may take a chance of filling up the lacuna in its case that may be disclosed in
cross-examination of such witnesses.
232. Acquittal. - If, after taking the evidence for the prosecution, examining the
accused and hearing the prosecution and the defence on the point, the Judge
considers that there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence, the
Judge shall record an order of acquittal.
If after taking the evidence for the prosecution, examining the accused and hearing
the prosecution and the defence on the point, the judge considers that there is no
evidence that hte accused committed the offence, the judge shall record the order
of acquittal. The object of this section is to expedite the conclusion of the session
trial and, at the same time, to avoid unnecessary harassment to the accused by
calling upon him to adduce evidence or to avoid the waste of public time when
there is no evidence at all.
The section confers an important statutory right upon the accused person to take
his chance of acquittal up to the storage of Section 232. Till then, he is under no
duty to disclose the names of his defence witnesses. If the judge does not think it
proper to acquit him under Section 232, he has to call on the accused to enter on
his defence and it is that stage at which the accused person is under duty to apply

for the issue of process for summoning the defence witnesses.


The words "no evidence" in Section 232 should not be taken as meaning "no
satisfactory, trustworty or conclusive evidence". The words simply import the
sense that there is upon the record only such evidence which, even if it were
perfectly true, would not amount to legal proof of the offence charged against the
accused. What the court has to decide under Section 232 is whether there is
evidence to show that the accused has committed the offence; but at that stage the
court should not consider what value should be attached to such evidence. If the
court finds that there is "no evidence" within the meaning of what is narrated
above, then it has power to acquit the accused. The court passing such an order of
acquittal may have to give some reasons as to why it came to the conclusion that
there was no evidence at all as its order of acquittal would be ordinarily subject to
appeal.
233. Entering upon defence. - (1) Where the accused is not acquitted under
Section 232, he shall be called upon to enter on his defence and adduce any
evidence he may have in support thereof.
(2) If the accused puts in any written statement, the Judge shall file it with the
record.
(3) If the accused applies for the issue of any process for compelling the
attendance of any witness or the production of any document or thing, the Judge
shall issue such process unless he considers, for reasons to be recorded, that such
application should be refused on the ground that it is made for the purpose of
vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice.
234. Arguments. - When the examination of the witnesses (if any) for the defence
is complete, the prosecutor shall sum up his case and the accused or his pleader
shall be entitled to reply :
Provided that where any point of law is raised by the accused or his pleader, the
prosecution may, with the permission of the Judge, make his submissions with
regard to such point of law.
235. Judgment of acquittal or conviction. - (1) After hearing arguments and

points of law (if any), the Judge shall give a judgment in the case.
(2) If the accused is convicted, the Judge shall, unless he proceeds in accordance
with the provisions of Section 360, hear the accused on the question of sentence,
and then pass sentence on him according to law.
Spelling out the primary object of punishment the Supreme Court in Shivaji alias
Dadya Shankar Alhat v. State of Maharashtra, observed that protection of society
and stamping out criminal proclivity by imposing appropriate sentence should be
the purpose of sentencing system. Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence
would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in
the efficacy of law and society could not long endure such serious threats. Any
liberal attitude by imposing meagre sentences or taking too sympathetic view
would be counterproductive in the long run and against social interest which needs
to be cared for and strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing
system.

In the instant case the accused raped and murdered 9 years girl who was his
neighbour. There was evidence that he took away the deceased to a hill side
pretending to give her fire-wood, raped and then killed her and absconded but
finally arrested with weapons and blood stained clothes. His conviction for rape
and murder was proper and the case fell in the category of rarest of rare cases.

The section provides that where the accused is convicted, except in cases of
admonition or release on probation of good conduct under Section 360 , CrPC, the
Judge must hear the accused in the question of quantum of sentence. In case of
non-compliance of this provision as contained in sub-section (2) of this section,
the case may be remanded to the trial Court for hearing the accused only on the
point of sentence. In that case, the Sessions Judge is not to hold trial de novo but
only restrict it to the question of sentence. However, the appellate Court has no
jurisdiction to question the accused under Section 235, CrPC or for that matter
under any provision of the Code.
Where after recording the finding of conviction, the Sessions Judge adjourned the
case to the next day for affording an opportunity to the accused as well as the

prosecution to make their submissions on the question of sentence, it was held that
there was substantial compliance of Section 235 (2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.

In Bishnu v. State of Rajasthan, it has been held that an order of conviction and
sentence passed by the Sessions Judge on the same day was bad in law as it lacked
substantial compliance of the provision of Section 235 (2) regarding opportunity
to the accused and the prosecution to be heard on point of sentence.

In Kamlakar Nandram Bhawsar v. State of Maharashtra, the accused was duly


offered opportunity to be heard on the question of sentence as contemplated by
Section 235 (2) of Cr. P. C. and thereafter his sentence was pronounced. But he
was not heard after award of the sentence. Rejecting his appeal the Supreme Court
held that in case of award of sentence remand is not always necessary because it is
an exception rather than a general rule.

The case of Ramsingh v. Sania and others was related to confession under Section
164 and opportunity to be heard on question of sentence under Section 235 (2) of
Cr. P. C. The accused persons were husband and wife who had committed multiple
murders of the wifes step-brother and his wife and three children while they were
asleep to get the property of the deceased persons which was in crores.

The Sessions Court convicted the accused persons with sentence of death treating
it to be a rarest of rare case. They appealed for remission of sentence on the
ground that they had confessed their offence and hence deserved leniency in
sentence. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the death sentence
of both the accused.
236. Previous conviction. - In a case where a previous conviction is charged
under the provisions of sub-section (7) of Section 211, and the accused does not
admit that he has been previously convicted as alleged in the charge, the Judge

may, after he has convicted the said accused under Section 229 or Section 235,
take evidence in respect of the alleged previous conviction, and shall record a
finding thereon :
Provided that no such charge shall be read out by the Judge nor shall the accused
be asked to plead thereto nor shall the previous conviction be referred to by the
prosecution or in any evidence adduced by it, unless and until the accused has
been convicted under Section 229 or Section 235.
This section provides for a special procedure for determining liability to enhanced
punishment as a consequence of previous conviction. The object of the section in
prohibiting the proof of previous conviction to be given until and unless the
accused is convicted, is to prevent the accused from being prejudiced at the trial.
237. Procedure in cases instituted under Section 199(2). - (1) A Court of
Session taking cognizance of an offence under sub-section (2) of Section 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 :
Provided that the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been
committed shall, unless the Court of Session, for reasons to be recorded, otherwise
directs, be examined as a witness for the prosecution.(2) 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.
(3) If, in any such case, the Court discharges or acquits all or any of the accused
and is of opinion that there was no reasonable cause for making the accusation
against them or any of them, it may, by its order of discharge or acquittal, direct
the person against whom the offence was alleged to have been committed (other
than the President, Vice-President or Governor of a State or the Administrator of a
Union territory) 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.
(4) 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, for reasons to be recorded, make an order that
compensation to such amount not exceeding one thousand rupees, as it may
determine, be paid by such person to the accused or to each or any of them.
(5) Compensation awarded under sub-section (4) shall be recovered as if it were a
fine imposed by a Magistrate.
(6) No person who has been directed to pay compensation under sub-section (4)
shall, by reason of such order, be exempted from any civil or criminal liability in
respect of the complaint made under this section :
Provided that any amount paid to an accused person under this section shall be
taken into account in awarding compensation to such person in any subsequent
civil suit relating to the same matter.(7) The person who has been ordered under
sub-section (4) to pay compensation, may appeal from the order, in so far as it
relates to the payment of compensation, to the High Court.
(8) 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.