Author: Debosmita Das , Amity University Kolkata.
Abstract:
The case of accused appellant Surendra Koli serves as the main focus of this research paper, which discusses the crucial concept of a fair trial within the criminal justice system. The difficulties in administering justice in intricate judicial systems are best exemplified by Koli’s trial under several sections of the Indian Penal Code. The paper explores complex topics like the integrity of trial procedures, the impartiality of the judiciary, and the burden of proof. It examines the ethical and constitutional relevance of a fair trial critically, highlighting the need for active judicial participation in order to properly discover the truth and carry out the justice system. Specific instances of proactive judicial involvement that produced fair results are emphasised. In the end, the article looks at Koli’s conviction being overturned due to a lack of evidence that could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and emphasises the judiciary’s dedication to preserving the norms of fair trials. The research clarifies the difficulties in maintaining justice, especially in situations when circumstantial evidence is used. Additionally, the report offers recommendations for strengthening the integrity of the legal system, such as judges actively participating in trial proceedings, improving legal practitioner training, investigating technological improvements, and conducting public awareness campaigns.
The research study concludes by navigating the difficult line that the criminal justice system must walk between justice and fairness and highlighting the critical role that the judiciary plays in defending the rights of all parties involved and maintaining the integrity of trial procedures.
Keywords: Criminal Justice, Fairness, Proof, Judiciary, Trial, Etc.
Introduction:
The primary objective of a criminal trial is to find the truth, and the judge has the duty to look everywhere for it in order to preserve justice. “Audi alteram partem” forbids conviction without a fair trial and requires proof of innocence to be shown.i A fair, just, and reasonable criminal trial must meet two fundamental requirements: free legal aid and swift & Speedy trial.ii In the current era, a fair trial must come after a fair inquiry that is done in public by an unbiased judge sworn to administer justice “without being favour, ill will, or affection,” and that includes material that is provided to the accused beforehandiii.
Every party is given the same opportunity in front of an impartial judge during a fair trial. One of the most important defences of human rights and the rule of law is the right to a fair trial. ensuring that justice is administered correctly. A fair trial encompasses all available legal avenues for an impartial and appropriate trial to prove one’s innocence.
It is impossible to determine a criminal trial’s fairness accurately. To assess fairness, variables including the gravity of the charge, the resources at hand, and society norms must be taken into account. Although the definition of a trial is not clearly stated in the Cr.P.C., it is required that the public prosecutor lead the prosecution in each trial held before the Court of Session. If the accused person cannot afford legal representation, the state will offer it to them. The State Government and the High Court work together to set regulations on the defence pleaders’ facilities, fees, and selection procedure.
The case of Surendra Koli v State of U.P. provides insight into the criminal justice system’s careful analysis of the fair trial standards. This study intends to examine the application of these principles and their impact on achieving justice and safeguarding individual rights through a thorough analysis of this case.
Background & Context:
Ensuring fair trial principles is the cornerstone of the criminal justice system, safeguarding the rights of defendants worldwide. The effectiveness of these ideas is examined through a critical lens in the case of Surendra Koli v. State of U.P. Against the backdrop of India, where inequalities and problems with the legal system endure, this case brings to light the intricacies of court cases, judicial behaviour, and social influences. Comprehending the contextual background of this case is crucial in evaluating its wider ramifications for the administration of justice, especially in areas where bias, inequality, and procedural fairness are prevalent concerns. iv
History of Free Trial:
It is better that ten wicked people escape than one innocent person suffer,” said Benjamin Franklin, according to a famous quote. Magna Carta, which gave all freemen the right to a jury trial in 1215, is considered to be the first document that codified the idea of a fair trial. A fair trial is one that has an impartial judge and jury present, according to Black Law’s Dictionary. Every person is entitled to a fair trial, which is recognised by the law as a fundamental right. In addition, every person has the right to self-defence; the denial of that right equates to the denial of a fair trial.
Fair Trial under Indian Constitution:
The Constitution is country’s fundamental law. By guaranteeing some fundamental rights to all individuals, including as the right to a fair trial and the right to legal counselvii, it offers a fundamental framework for the management of the criminal judicial system. Article 20 guarantees that no one is subject to more than one prosecution or penalty for the same offence, nor can someone be penalized for an act that was lawful at the time it was undertaken. In a similar vein, Article 21 forbids taking away someone’s life or personal freedom without following the proper legal procedures.viii Article 22 guarantees the right to appear before a magistrate within twenty-four hours, to speak with a lawyer, and to be informed of the reasons for the arrest. ix Lastly, Article 39A requires the State to guarantee free legal aid in order to guarantee that all people, regardless of financial situation or other limitations, have equal access to justice. x These rules guarantee that everyone is treated fairly and justly in the legal system and are crucial defences against arbitrary imprisonment.
Fair Trial under Criminal Procedure Code, 1973:
The type of crime committed by the accused determines the trial procedure in the Indian legal system. For crimes that carry a sentence of more than seven years in jail, life in prison, or death, a session trial is held. For crimes carrying a maximum sentence of life in prison, the death penalty, or more than two years in jail, a warrant trial is held. For offences carrying a sentence of less than two years in jail, a summons trial is held, and the magistrate issues a summons to the accused. While complex issues are saved for summons and warrant trials, summary trials are intended to swiftly settle minor disagreements and are recorded summarily. Either a conviction or an acquittal results from the trial.
The process for the accused to submit written statements and to call witnesses or produce documents is outlined in Section 243.xi Unless the requests are judged to be frivolous or to be impeding the trial, the magistrate is required to issue a process for them. Evidence must be gathered in front of the accused or their legal representation, according to Section 273, with reasonable precautions made to safeguard victims of sexual offences. xiiThey must be read the witness evidence in accordance with Section 278 and have any required revisions made.xiii The process for documenting the accused’s examination is outlined in Section 281, and the accused, the magistrate, or the presiding judge must sign the record. xivDouble jeopardy is forbidden by Section 300, with few exceptions for dissimilar offences or newly discovered facts 19.
Principles of Fair Trails:
Due process, impartiality, and justice are guaranteed by fair trials. The presumption of innocence, the right to counsel, access to the evidence, an unbiased court, a public trial, the prohibition on self-incrimination, and the appeals process are among the fundamental ideas.
Those principles protect fundamental rights and guarantee justice and impartiality in court.
Impartiality, Independence, and Competence of Judges:
According to “Nemo Judex in Causa Sua,” nobody can judge another person’s case. This principle, known as the rule against bias, stipulates that decisions must only be made by unbiased parties operating fairly. Judges are expressly prohibited from hearing cases or appeals in which they are parties or have a vested interest by Section 479 of the Cr.P.C. In a criminal case, the state is the defence, and since the investigative team is an arm of the state, the courts must be free from any concerns regarding direct or indirect administrative power and control. The state is similarly required by Article 50 to take action to separate the judiciary from the executive.
Right to a Speedy trial:
Magna Carta and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution are only two examples of the many legal documents that guarantee the right to a fair trial, which includes the extremely valuable fundamental right to a fast trial. This right is based on the idea that cases should be settled as soon as practicable. The characteristic of the criminal procedure is a speedy and fair trial, which boosts public trust in the legal system. It is crucial to remember that a quick trial must also be effective, since quick justice served by ineffective means is useless. According to the accused, the stated objectives of this right are to: (a) reduce the length of remand and pre-trial custody; (b) lessen stress, anxiety, cost, and disruption to the accused’s career and peace; and (c) potentially hinder the accused’s capacity to defend themselves.xx This right is a duty of the court to the victim in particular as well as to society at large; it is not the exclusive right of the accused.
Right against the Self – Incrimination:
An accused person’s case may be compromised if police officers threaten or pressure them into providing testimony or a statement. The accused may choose to keep silent and not divulge any information when under pressure, but they are still required to answer all questions honestly, with the exception of those that could be used against them.xxi This is where the Right against Self-Incrimination comes into play. This clause aims to protect individual privacy and set clear guidelines for the criminal justice system.
Critical Analysis:
Justice has not been served promptly by the Indian legal system. One of the most significant problems with the legal system has been shown to be this delay in justice. When a situation takes longer to resolve than the amount of time the court should properly utilise to consider the case, this is referred to as a delay in justice. In addition to making litigants unhappy, delays in justice can weaken the authority of the legal system. The fact that there are far more cases filed in the courts than there are judges to handle them is one of the main reasons why justice is delayed. Compared to the institution of cases, the institution of cases is expanding more quickly.
A speedy trial is a crucial component of a fair trial, although in India it seems to be more of a secondary idea that cases would be resolved as quickly as possible due to a number of factors that cause delays in the system:
A lack of transparency, problems with appointments, and insufficient judicial Strength:
They are all results of the long-term infiltration of nepotism, corruption, bribery, and favouritism into the legal system, which is protected by the tactic of contempt of court and immunity from accountability. Politicians and activists have been thinking about judicial accountability among the many other issues pertaining to the judiciary.
- There are still open cases.
- Insufficient judicial power and concerns around appointments Attorneys are not working.
- Transparency is lacking.
- Difficulties and struggles.
- Inter-society contact does not exist.
- Reduced dependence on technology.
However, in the Present case, the prosecution’s case against the defendant, which is based mostly on a co-accused’s confession and is made possible by Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. The confession was not, the court concludes, voluntary or truthful, and it is noted that there is no supporting evidence for the confession. Furthermore, inconsistencies in the procedure, like the absence of a medical checkup and legal assistance during the confession process, cast doubt on its validity. The case is further undermined by the prosecution’s inconsistent narrative. In the end, the prosecution fails to establish the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, especially in a case based mostly on circumstantial evidence, the court finds. Because there was insufficient evidence to support the accused’s conviction and because of the assumption of innocence, they are thus found not guilty.
Suggestions:
Judicial accountability:
Accepting responsibility for one’s actions and performances by offering explanations or avoiding consequences is the posture known as accountability. Accountability is limited to situations in which you owe someone something. The judiciary, which is shielded from openness by the Right to Information Act of 2002, is a prime example of an institution devoid of accountability. This Act was a significant piece of legislation meant to promote transparency and accountability, but the higher judiciary disregarded it.
Conclusion:
A fair trial is a vital component that gives the public trust that justice will be administered in an unbiased manner. Natural law guarantees these rights. In order to eradicate prejudices, all procedural standards must be followed. While adopting aspects of the inquisitorial system, the Indian adversarial court system has adopted a balanced stance.
In conclusion, the Surendra Koli v. State of U.P. case illuminates the complex inner workings of the criminal justice system, especially in India, where concerns about procedural fairness, bias, and inequity continue to exist. It is clear from a critical analysis of this case that upholding justice and preserving individual rights depend heavily on the fair trial standards of impartiality, independence, and judicial competence. However, the system is beset with problems that impede the prompt resolution of cases, such as delays in justice brought on by things like a lack of judicial authority and transparency concerns.
Despite these obstacles, the judiciary consistently demonstrates its commitment to maintaining the standards of fair trials by overturning convictions for lack of evidence and procedural irregularities. This emphasises how important the court is to protecting the legal rights of all parties and upholding the fairness of the legal system. In the future, building trust in the legal system would need improving judicial accountability through tools like transparency and following laws like the Right to Information Act of 2002.
The integrity of the legal system can also be strengthened by implementing suggestions such enhanced legal practitioner training, active judicial participation in trial proceedings, using technology improvements, and launching public awareness initiatives. Through the implementation of appropriate changes and addressing these difficulties, the criminal justice system may effectively manage the fine balance between justice and fairness, all the while upholding the rights of every individual. In the end, the quest of a fair trial continues to be a pillar of a just society, and cooperation is necessary to get beyond challenges and preserve this important idea.
