A trial before a Court of Session under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in India is a significant step in the legal process, typically associated with more serious criminal cases.
1. Nature of Offences:
Cases that are exclusively triable by a Court of Session include serious offenses such as murder, rape, dacoity, and other grave crimes. The Court of Session has the jurisdiction to try such cases.
2. Commencement of the Trial:
- The trial before the Court of Session usually commences with the framing of charges against the accused. The charges specify the offenses the accused is alleged to have committed.
3. Presence of a Public Prosecutor:
In trials before the Court of Session, a Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor is typically appointed to represent the state and present the case against the accused. The accused may have their legal counsel to defend them.
4. Examination of Witnesses:
- The prosecution presents its witnesses and evidence to prove the charges against the accused. Witnesses are examined and cross-examined.
- After the prosecution’s case, the accused is given the opportunity to present their defense, call witnesses, and produce evidence in their favor.
5. Cross-Examination:
Cross-examination is a critical part of the trial where both the prosecution and the defence can question witnesses to test their credibility and the veracity of their testimony.
6. Oral and Documentary Evidence:
Both oral and documentary evidence can be presented in a Court of Session. Witnesses may provide oral testimony, and documents such as reports, records, and forensic evidence may be submitted.
7. Closing Arguments:
After all evidence has been presented, the prosecution and defence present their closing arguments to summarize their case and persuade the court.
8. Judgment:
The Court of Session, after considering the evidence and arguments, delivers its judgment. If the accused is found guilty, the court proceeds to pronounce the sentence, which may include imprisonment, fines, or other penalties.
9. Appeal:
The accused or the state (in case of an acquittal) has the right to appeal to a higher court, such as the High Court, if they are dissatisfied with the verdict.
10. Procedural Safeguards: Throughout the trial, the accused is afforded various procedural safeguards, including the right to legal representation, the right to remain silent, the right to a fair trial, and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Trial before C.O.S
| CrPC Sections | Title and Explanation |
|---|---|
| Section 225 | Trial of Several Offenses |
| Section 226 | Trial of Offenses Where Accused Is Charged with Several Offenses |
| Section 227 | Accused Shall Be Acquitted If No Case Is Made Out |
| Section 228 | Framing of Charge |
| Section 229 | When Accused Shall Be Called Upon to Enter upon His Defence |
| Section 230 | Consequences of the Accused Refusing to Plead |
| Section 231 | Power to Direct Separate Trials |
| Section 232 | Acquittal or Conviction |
| Section 233 | Power to Take Fresh Evidence |
| Section 234 | Judgment in Case of Accused Being Lunatic |
Relevant case laws related to the sections from 225 to 237 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in India:
Section 225 – Trial of Several Offenses:
- State of West Bengal v. Talib Hussein (1984): This case emphasizes that offenses arising from the same transaction should be tried together to avoid conflicting judgments and to serve the interests of justice.
Section 227 – Accused Shall Be Acquitted If No Case Is Made Out:
- Hari Singh Gond v. State of M.P. (2008): This case highlights that at the stage of framing charges, the court must apply a prima facie standard and not conduct a detailed inquiry into the evidence. Charges should be framed if there is a possibility of the accused being convicted.
Section 228 – Framing of Charge:
- Kailash Gour v. State of Assam (2018): This case reinforces the principle that the court should not evaluate the evidence in detail while framing charges. It should be satisfied that a prima facie case exists based on the material available.
Section 229 – When Accused Shall Be Called Upon to Enter upon His Defence:
- Abani K. Samal v. State of Orissa (1979): This case underscores that after the charge is framed, the accused must be given the opportunity to enter upon their defense, and they should be asked whether they wish to cross-examine prosecution witnesses.
Section 230 – Consequences of the Accused Refusing to Plead:
- State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh (1973): This case clarifies that when the accused refuses to plead, the trial should continue as if the accused has pleaded not guilty.
Section 231 – Power to Direct Separate Trials:
- Doman Mandal v. State of Bihar (1978): This case illustrates that the court has the discretion to order separate trials for different offenses to ensure a fair and just trial process.
Section 232 – Acquittal or Conviction:
- Anil Rai v. State of Bihar (2001): This case emphasizes the importance of recording reasons for acquittal and provides guidance on the proper approach for judgment.
Section 233 – Power to Take Fresh Evidence:
- Sardul Singh Caveeshar v. State of Maharashtra (1963): This case underscores that fresh evidence can be introduced after conviction but before sentencing, and the court has discretion in admitting such evidence.
Section 234 – Judgment in Case of Accused Being Lunatic:
- Ratan Lal v. State of Bihar (1981): This case addresses the procedure when the accused is found to be of unsound mind and outlines the court’s role in such circumstances.
