9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ught 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, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , AOR, Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, AOR, Mr. D.S. Parmar, AAG, Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR, Mr. Rovins F. Verma, Adv, Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR, Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR, Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Adv., Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv., Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR, Mr. Shaurya Sahay, Adv., Mr. P.S. Negi, Adv., Ms. Aruna Mathur, AOR, Mr. Avneesh Arputham, Adv., M/S. Arputham Aruna And Co, AOR, Mr. Saurabh Mishra, AAG, Mr. Gopal Jha, AOR, Mr. Shreyash Bhardwaj, Adv., Ms. Shashi Juneja, Adv., Mr. Satish Pandey, Adv., Mr. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, AOR, Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, Adv., Ms. Garima Prashad, AOR, Mr. Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, AOR, Mr. Yajur Bhalla, Adv., Mr. Deepak Samota, Adv., Mr. Siddharth Srivastava, Adv., Mr. Shubham Bhalla, AOR, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR, Ms. Sneha Kalita, AOR, Ms. Bristi Rekha Mahanta, Adv., Ms. Manisha Ambwani, AOR, Mr. Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, AOR, Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, AOR, Mrs. Bihu Sharma, Adv., Ms. Pratishtha Vij, Adv., Mr. Mukesh K. Giri, AOR, Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, AOR, Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR, Mr. Kabir Shankar Bose, Adv., Mr. Mukul Kumar, AOR, Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR, Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR, Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv., Mr. Pravar Veer Misra, Adv., Mr. Vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chanda, Adv., Mr. Sayandeep Pahari, Adv, For PLR Chambers Co. and Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh, AOR ORDER 1. This suo motu proceeding under Article 32 was initiated during the course of hearing of a criminal appeal [Crl.A.400/2006 connected matters] . The Court noticed common 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. These related, amongst others, to the manner in which documents (i.e. list of witnesses, list of exhibits, list of material objects) referred to are presented and exhibited in the judgment, and the 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, etc. These very often lead to asymmetries and hamper appreciation of evidence, which in turn has a tendency of prolonging proceedings, especially at the appellate stages. 2. The Court had noticed that on these prominent aspects, rules appeared to have been formulated by certain High Courts, whereas many other High Courts hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iverse practices among the various state authorities and High Courts in the country. The draft rules are compliant and not in any way repugnant to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Many suggestions made as practice directions reflect the mandatory provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 6. By later orders dated 27.10.2020 and 19.01.2021, the High Courts were once again directed to file their responses to the Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2020. Pursuant to that order, all High Courts filed their responses and the summaries of the responses. 7. During the hearing, this court noticed that most of the suggestions had been agreed except in regard to a few aspects. Some High Courts, while accepting the Draft Rules also sought to elaborate and supplement them, which is a welcome step. 8. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce it, or to produce it, at the time and place stated in the summons or order. (2) Any person required under this section merely to produce a document or other thing shall be deemed to have complied with the requisition if he causes such document or thing to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the same. (3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed- (a) to affect sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872 ), or the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 (13 of 1891) or (c)to apply to a letter, postcard, telegram or other document or any parcel or thing in the custody of the postal or telegraph authority.] for their production during the trial, in the interests of justice. It is directed accordingly; the draft rules have been accordingly modified. [Rule 4(i)] 12. It was pointed out by learned amici that the practice adopted predominantly in all trials is guided by the decision of this court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat [(2001) 3 SCC 1] with respect to objections regarding questions to be put to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ges. First is that the time in the trial court, during evidence taking stage, would not be wasted on account of raising such objections and the court can continue to examine the witnesses. The witnesses need not wait for long hours, if not days. Second is that the superior court, when the same objection is re-canvassed and reconsidered in appeal or revision against the final judgment of the trial court, can determine the correctness of the view taken by the trial court regarding that objection, without bothering to remit the case to the trial court again for fresh disposal. We may also point out that this measure would not cause any prejudice to the parties to the litigation and would not add to their misery or expenses. 13. It was argued by amici that the procedure, whereby the courts record answers to all questions, regardless of objections, leads to prolonged and lengthy cross examination, and more often than not, irrelevant facts having no bearing on the charge or the role of the accused, are brought on record, which often result in great prejudice. It is pointed out that due to the practice mandated in Bipin Shantilal Panchal (supra), such material not only enters the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns 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. Therefore, this court is of opinion that the view in Bipin Shantilal Panchal should not be considered as binding. The presiding officer therefore, should decide objections to questions, during the course of the proceeding, or failing it at the end of the deposition of the concerned witness. This will result in decluttering the record, and, what is more, also have a s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound 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. 18. It was submitted by the amici that as regards the subject matter relating to the first three Draft Rules, the state and police authorities have to carry out necessary and consequential amendments to the police manuals, and other related instructions, to be followed by each state. Counsel appearing for states and union territories have assured that suitable steps to incorporate the Draft Rules - relating to (1) Body sketch to accompany medico-legal certificate, post-mortem report and inquest report [Draft Rule No. 1]; (2) Photographs and Video graphs of post mortem in certain cases [Draft Rule No. 2] and (3) Scene Mahazar/ Spot Panchanama [Draft Rule No. 3] would be taken at the earliest. 19. The court is of the opinion that the Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2021, ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
