2021 (4) TMI 1270 - SC - Indian Laws

Deficiencies which occur in the course of criminal trials and certain practices adopted by trial courts in criminal proceedings as well as in the disposal of criminal cases and causes - manner in which documents referred to are presented and exhibited in the judgment - lack of uniform practices in regard to preparation of injury reports - deposition of witnesses - translation of statements - numbering and nomenclature of witnesses - labeling of material objects - HELD THAT - The High Courts unanimously welcomed the suggestion of separating the prosecution from the investigation, (i.e. Rule 18 in the Draft Rules, 2020) which provides that a separate team of lawyers, distinct from Public Prosecutors must advise the police during the investigation. However, as pointed out by many High Courts, this is a step that should be actively pursued by the State Governments. Similarly, the High Courts welcomed the uniform manner in which body sketches, spot panchnamas etc. are to be brought on record (Draft Rules 1-4). However, they state that the onus for the implementation of these Rules is on the investigation agencies. Apart from Section 148, there are other provisions of the Evidence Act (Sections 149-154) which define the ground rules for cross examination. During questioning, no doubt, the counsel for the party seeking cross examination has considerable leeway; cross examination is not confined to matters in issue, but extends to all relevant facts. However, if the court is not empowered to rule, during the proceeding, whether a line of questioning is relevant, the danger lies in irrelevant, vague and speculative answers entering the record. Further, based on the answers to what (subsequently turn out to be irrelevant, vague or otherwise impermissible questions) more questions might be asked and answered. If this process were to be repeated in case of most witnesses, the record would be cluttered with a jumble of irrelevant details, which at best can be distracting, and at worst, prejudicial to the accused. This court is of the opinion that the courts in all criminal trials should, at the beginning of the trial, i.e. after summoning of the accused, and framing of charges, hold a preliminary case management hearing. This hearing may take place immediately after the framing of the charge - the concerned witnesses may be bound down to appear for 2-3 consecutive dates, in case their depositions are not concluded. Also, in case any witness does not appear, or cannot be examined, the court shall indicate a fixed date for such purpose. The recording of deposition of witnesses shall then be taken up, after the scheduling exercise is complete. This court has appropriately carried out necessary amendments to the Draft Rules. The court hereby places its appreciation and gratitude to the contributions and effort of the three amici Shri Siddharth Luthra, Shri R. Basanth (Senior Advocates) and Shri K. Parameshwar, Advocate - they gave valuable inputs and innumerable suggestions, considered all suggestions given by various stakeholders, reported to the court and made extremely useful submissions - the suo motu proceeding is disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Common deficiencies in criminal trials and practices adopted by trial courts.
2. Lack of uniform practices across High Courts.
3. Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2020.
4. Responses and suggestions from High Courts and State Governments.
5. Specific objections and reservations by High Courts on certain draft rules.
6. Modifications to the practice mandated in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat.
7. Implementation of day-to-day trial procedures.
8. Amendments to police manuals and related instructions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Common Deficiencies in Criminal Trials and Practices Adopted by Trial Courts:
The Supreme Court initiated suo motu proceedings under Article 32 during a criminal appeal, identifying common deficiencies in criminal trials and practices adopted by trial courts. These deficiencies included the manner of presenting and exhibiting documents, preparation of injury reports, deposition of witnesses, translation of statements, and labeling of material objects. Such inconsistencies often lead to asymmetries and hamper the appreciation of evidence, prolonging proceedings, especially at the appellate stages.

2. Lack of Uniform Practices Across High Courts:
The Court observed that while some High Courts had formulated rules on these aspects, many others had not, resulting in a lack of clarity and uniformity in trial court proceedings and records. This inconsistency affected the appreciation of evidence at the High Court level and eventually before the Supreme Court.

3. Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2020:
An elaborate order dated 30.03.2017 flagged inadequacies in High Court practices and rules. The Court issued notices to various stakeholders, including Registrar Generals of all High Courts, Chief Secretaries, Administrators of States and Union Territories, Advocates General, Additional Advocates Generals, and Senior Standing Counsel. By January 2019, responses from 15 States/Union Territories and 21 High Courts were received. Based on these responses, the amici curiae developed a consultation paper and draft rules, which were circulated for feedback and discussed in a colloquium.

4. Responses and Suggestions from High Courts and State Governments:
The amici curiae submitted the "Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2020" for consideration. The draft rules aimed to ensure uniformity while recognizing diverse practices among state authorities and High Courts. The draft rules were compliant with the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. By later orders, the High Courts were directed to file their responses to the draft rules, and summaries of these responses were considered during hearings.

5. Specific Objections and Reservations by High Courts on Certain Draft Rules:
The Court noted that most suggestions were agreed upon except for a few aspects. Some High Courts sought to elaborate and supplement the draft rules. Specific objections included:
- Translations of depositions (Draft Rule 6(i)(ii)) by High Courts of Madhya Pradesh, Kerala, Tamil Nadu.
- References to accused/witnesses/material objects (Draft Rule 9) by High Courts of Allahabad, MP, Tripura, Kerala, Calcutta.
- The rule requiring day-to-day trial (Rule 19(i)) by High Courts of Madhya Pradesh, Manipur, Tripura.

6. Modifications to the Practice Mandated in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat:
The amici argued that the practice of recording answers to all questions regardless of objections led to prolonged and irrelevant cross-examinations. The Court reconsidered the practice mandated in Bipin Shantilal Panchal, deciding that presiding officers should rule on objections during proceedings or at the end of the witness's deposition to prevent irrelevant material from cluttering the record.

7. Implementation of Day-to-Day Trial Procedures:
Counsel for states and High Courts submitted that day-to-day trials were challenging due to non-availability of witnesses, defense counsel, or prosecutors. The Court suggested a preliminary case management hearing after framing charges to schedule witness depositions effectively. This would ensure that witnesses are available on specific dates, reducing delays.

8. Amendments to Police Manuals and Related Instructions:
The amici highlighted the need for state and police authorities to amend police manuals and related instructions to incorporate the first three draft rules. Counsel for states and union territories assured that suitable steps would be taken to implement these rules.

Conclusion and Directions:
The Court finalized the Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2021, and directed all High Courts to incorporate these rules within six months. State governments and the Union of India were instructed to amend their police manuals accordingly. The Court appreciated the contributions of the amici curiae and other assisting advocates. The suo motu proceeding was disposed of in terms of these directions.