TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTERIZATION:-

1) Introduction

2) Right to Fair Trial- a Human Right

3) Constitutional Provision

4) Provisions Under CrPC

5) Conclusion

BIbliography

FAIR TRIAL IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM 1

INTRODUCTION

The concept of fair trial has been adopted by almost all the countries in their respected field of laws. The purpose behind the establishment of fair trial is to protect the common man from unfair means of any injustice and violation of fundamental right. The principals of natural justice are the ultimate basis of fair trial system. As far as country like India is concerned the concept of fair trial is envisaged under the constitutional law and other procedural law. Everyone has an inbuilt right to be dealt fairly in a criminal trial. Denial of a fair trial is as much injustice to the accused and is to the victims and the society. The fair trial of criminal offence consists not only in technical observance of the frames and norms of law but also in recognition and just application of its principles in substance, to find out the truth and prevent miscarriage of justice.

Aims & Objectives-: The aims and objectives of the project is to1) Know about the right to fair trial 2) Study the relevant provisions under CrPC

Hypothesis-: According to the researcher the hypothesis of the project is that, even after so many provisions and rights related to fair trial only few people are able to face a fair trial.

Research Methodology-: The method of writing adopted is Doctrinal one including both descriptive and Analytical

Sources Of Data-: The researcher has mainly relied upon primary as well as secondary sources e.g. Books, Articles, Internet websites.
FAIR TRIAL IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM 2

Right to a Fair Trial- a human right

The right to fair trial is an essential right in all countries respecting the rule of law. A trial in these countries that is deemed unfair will typically be restarted, or its verdict voided. Various rights associated with a fair trial are explicitly proclaimed in Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights, as well as numerous other constitutions and declarations throughout the world. There is no binding international law that defines what is or is not a fair trial, for example the right to a jury trial and other important procedures vary from nation to nation. The right to fair trial is very helpful in numerous declarations which represent customary international law, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).1 Though the UDHR enshrines some fair trial rights, such as the presumption of innocence until the accused is proven guilty, in Articles 6, 7, 8 and 11,2 the key provision is Article 10 which states that: "Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him."3 Some years after the UDHR was adopted it was decided that the right to a fair trial should be defined in more detail in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The right to a fair trial is protected in Articles 14 and 16 of the ICCPR which is binding in international law on the 72 states that have ratified it.4 Article 14(1) establishes the basic right to a fair trial, article 14(2) provides for the presumption of innocence, and article 14(3) sets out a list of minimum fair trial rights in criminal proceedings. Article 14(5) establishes the

1 2

Doebbler, Curtis (2006). Introduction to International Human Rights Law. CD Publishing. p. 108 Alfredsson, Gudmundur; Eide, Asbjorn (1999). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: a common standard of achievement. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 225 3 http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml 4 Doebbler, Curtis (2006). Introduction to International Human Rights Law. CD Publishing. p. 107

FAIR TRIAL IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM 3

right of a convicted person to have a higher court review the conviction or sentence, and article 14(7) prohibits double jeopardy.5

Article 14(1) states that: "All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The press and the public may be excluded from all or part of a trial for reasons of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, or when the interest of the private lives of the parties so requires, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice; but any judgement rendered in a criminal case or in a suit at law shall be made public except where the interest of juvenile persons otherwise requires or the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes or the guardianship of children."6 The Geneva Conventions guarantee combatants the right not to be put on trial for fighting in a war - unless they commit a war crime (a grave breach) or other crime (e.g., captured behind enemy lines out of proper uniforms or insignia while carrying out espionage or sabotage operations). Most held under the Geneva Conventions are not accused of a crime and therefore it would be a war crime under the Geneva Conventions to give them a trial. This protection against getting a trial is fully consistent with human rights law because human rights law prohibits putting people on trial when there is no crime to try them for. The Geneva Conventions however guarantee that anyone charged with a war crime or other crime must get a fair trial. The right to a fair trial is enshrined in articles 3, 7 and 26 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR).7 The right to a fair trial is also enshrined in articles 5, 6 and 7 of the European Charter on Human Rights and articles 2 to 4 of the 7th Protocol to the Charter.8

Alfredsson, Gudmundur; Eide, Asbjorn (1999). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: a common standard of achievement. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. pp. 225 226. 6 "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights". Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. 7 Doebbler, Curtis (2006). Introduction to International Human Rights Law. CD Publishing. p. 108. 8 Doebbler, Curtis (2006). Introduction to International Human Rights Law. CD Publishing. p. 108.

FAIR TRIAL IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM 4

The right to a fair trial is furthermore enshrined in articles 3, 8, 9 and 10 of the American Convention on Human Rights.9 The right to equality before the law is sometimes regarded as part of the rights to a fair trial. It is typically guaranteed under a separate article in international human rights instruments. The right entitles individuals to be recognised as subject, not as object, of the law. International human rights law permits no derogation or exceptions to this human right.10 Closely related to the right to a fair trial is the prohibition on ex post facto law, or retroactive law, which is enshrined in human rights instrument separately from the right to fair trial and can not be limited by states according to the European Convention on Human Rights and the American Convention on Human Rights11.

Doebbler, Curtis (2006). Introduction to International Human Rights Law. CD Publishing. p. 108. Doebbler, Curtis (2006). Introduction to International Human Rights Law. CD Publishing. p. 110 11 Doebbler, Curtis (2006). Introduction to International Human Rights Law. CD Publishing. p. 108.
10

FAIR TRIAL IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM 5

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS:

Fair trial is based on principle of natural justice. Constitution of India also provide for fair trial of the accused. It has been universally accepted in the present day of civilization that as a human value no person accused of any offence should be punished unless he has been given a fair trial and his guilt has been proved in such trial. The notion of fair trial cannot e explained in absolute terms. Fairness is relative concept and therefore fairness in criminal trial could be measured only in relation to the available time and resources and the prevailing human values in the society. Article 21 provides the protection of life and personal liberty. According to this article no person shall be deprived of his liberty except according to procedure established by law. As a broad principle, it may be stated that the liberty of a person should not be taken away without just cause. The detention of accused person prior to or pending trial is likely to cause direct or indirect obstructions in preparation of his defence and would not therefore be quite conductive to a fair trial.12 If the presence of accused cannot be procured otherwise then he should by all means be arrested and detained. Article 20 of the constitution provides protection in respect of conviction for offences. According to this article no person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the offence, nor be subjected to penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence. It also provides protection from double jeopardy. It further provides that no accused person shall be witness against himself. This is also safeguarded under section 25 and 26 of Indian evidence Act by not accepting confession made before police officer and police custody. Art 22(1), says, "No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.". It embodies two distinct rights - the right to be told of the grounds of arrest and the right to consult a legal practioner
12

See,. R.V.Kelkar : outlines of criminal procedure, (1977) at p.33.

FAIR TRIAL IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM 6

of his choice. The second right of consulting a legal practitioner of his choice actually depends on the first right of being told about the grounds of arrest. If the person doesn't know why he is being arrested, he cannot consult a legal practioner meaningfully. In Harikishan vs State of Maharashtra13 , SC held that the grounds of arrest must be communicated to the person in the language that he understands otherwise it would not amount to sufficient compliance of the constitutional requirement. Art 22(2) that gives a fundamental right to the arrested person that he must be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours of arrest. It says, "Every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of twentyfour hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court of the magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority of a magistrate." In Khatri (II) vs State of Bihar14 has strongly urged upon the State and its police to ensure that this constitutional and legal requirement of bringing an arrested person before a judicial magistrate within 24 hours be scrupulously met. This is a healthy provision that allows magistrates to keep a check on the police investigation. It is necessary that the magistrates should try to enforce this requirement and when they find it disobeyed, they should come heavily upon the police. Further, in Sharifbai vs Abdul Razak15, SC held that if a police officer fails to produce an arrested person before a magistrate within 24 hours, he shall be held guilty of wrongful detention. Article 22(4) provides that no law providing for preventive detention shall authorize the detention of a person for a longer period than three months unless(a) An advisory body consisting of persons who are, or have been, or are qualified to be appointed as, judges of high court has reported before the expiration of the said period of three months that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for such detention:

13 14

AIR 1962 1981 SCC, SC 15 AIR 1961

FAIR TRIAL IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM 7

Provided that nothing in this sub-clause shall authorize the detention of any person beyond the maximum period prescribed by any law made by the parliament under sub-clause (b) of clause 7; or

(b) Such person is detained in accordance with the provisions of any law made by parliament under sub-clause (a) and (b) of clause 7. Section 22 (5) when any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the ground on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order. Section 22 (6) provides that nothing in clause (5) shall require the authority making any such order as is referred to in that clause to disclose facts which such authority considers to be against the public interest to disclose. Article 22(7) parliament may by law prescribea) The circumstances under which, and the class or classes of cases in which, a person may be detained for a period longer than three months under any law providing for preventive detention without obtaining the opinion of an Advisory Board in accordance with the provisions of sub clause (a) of clause ( 4 ); b) the maximum period for which any person may in any class or classes of cases be detained under any law providing for preventive detention; and c) the procedure to be followed by an Advisory Board in an inquiry under sub clause (a) of clause ( 4 ) Right against Exploitation. In D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal16 Supreme Court held the following requirements to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention till legal provisions are made in that behalf as preventive measures: (1) The police personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the interrogation of the arrestee should bear accurate, visible and clear identification and name tags with their designations.

16

D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal, AIR1997SC610

FAIR TRIAL IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM 8

The particulars of all such police personnel who handle interrogation of the arrestee must be recorded in a register. (2) That the police officer carrying out the arrest of the arrestee shall prepare a memo of arrest at the time of arrest and such memo shall be attested by atleast one witness, who may be either a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality from where the arrest is made. It shall also be counter signed by the arrestee and shall contain the time and date of arrest. (3) A person who has been arrested or detained and is being held in custody in a police station or interrogation center or other lock-up, shall be entitled to have one friend or relative or other person known to him or having interest in his welfare being informed, as soon as practicable, that he has been arrested and is being detained at the particular place, unless the attesting witness of the memo of arrest is himself such a friend or a relative of the arrestee. (4) The time, place of arrest and venue of custody of an arrestee must be notified by the police where the next friend or relative of the arrestee lives outside the district or town through the Legal Aid Organisation in the District and the police station of the area concerned telegraphically within a period of 8 to 12 hours after the arrest. (5) The person arrested must be made aware of this right to have someone informed of his arrest or detention as soon as he is put under arrest or is detained. (6) An entry must be made in the diary at the place of detention regarding the arrest of the person which shall also disclose the name of the next friend of the person who has been informed of the arrest and the names and particulars of the police officials in whose custody the arrestee is. (7) The arrestee should, where he so requests, be also examined at the time of his arrest and major and minor injuries, if any present on his/her body, must be recorded at that time. The "Inspection Memo" must be signed both by the arrestee and the police officer effecting the arrest and its copy provided to the arrestee. (8) The arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by a trained doctor every 48 hours during his detention in custody by a doctor on the panel of approved doctors appointed by Director, Health Services of the concerned State or Union Territory. Director, Health Services should prepare such a penal for all Tehsils and Districts as well.
FAIR TRIAL IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM 9

(9) Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest, referred to above, should be sent to the illaqa Magistrate for his record. (10) The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation, though not throughout the interrogation. (11) A police control room should be provided at all district and state headquarters, where information regarding the arrest and the place of custody of the arrestee shall be communicated by the officer causing the arrest, within 12 hours of effecting the arrest and at the police control room it should be displayed on a conspicuous notice board.

FAIR TRIAL IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM 10

PROVISIONS UNDER CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE

The system adopted by the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred as the Code) is the adversary system based on the accusatorial method. In adversarial system responsibility for the production of evidence is placed on the opposing party that is prosecutions with the judge acting as a neutral referee between the parties. By contrast, in inquisitorial trial system responsibility for the production of evidence at trial is the job of the trial judge and it is the trial judge who decides which witnesses will be called at trial and who does most of the questioning of witnesses. The adversary system is more or less based on the notion of reconciliation of public and private interests, that is public interest in punishing the wrongdoer and prevents him to commit more crimes and private interest in preventing the wrongful convictions and protect his life and personal liberty. This system of criminal trial assumes that the state, on one hand, by using its investigative agencies and government counsels will prosecute the wrongdoer who, on the other hand, will also take recourse of best counsels to challenge and counter the evidences of the prosecution.17 But if we take a close look of the Code then we will find that there are some provisions which negate the strict adherence of the adversarial trial system. BASIC FAIR TRIAL CRITERIA The standards against which a trial is to be assessed in terms of fairness are numerous, complex, and constantly evolving. They may constitute binding obligations that are included in human rights treaties to which the state is a party. But, they may also be found in documents which, though not formally binding, can be taken to express the direction in which the law is evolving.

17

K.N.C.Pillai (ed),R.V.Kelkars Criminal Procedure , at 336(5 edn.)

th

FAIR TRIAL IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM 11

Provisions as regard arrest are contained in section 41 to 60A of crpc, 1973. In this chapter many of the provision relates to the fair trial. Section 4 provides that a police may arrest without warrant hence he has reason to believe that offence has been committed by the person and arrest is necessary as specified in this section. Section 41 B provides that the police shall inform the family member of the arrested person. Section 41-D provides that the arrested person shall be entitle to meet an advocate of his choice during interrogation, though not through out interrogation. Section 49 provides that no person shall be subjected to more restrain than is necessary to prevent his escape. Section 50 of this code provides that the accused must be informed of the full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or all other grounds for such arrest. It further provides that if the offence is bailable one then the accused must be informed of his right to furnish bail and he may arrange for sureties on his behalf. Section 50A makes an obligation of person making the arrest to inform about the arrest and place where the accused person is detained to the nominated person. Section 56 provides that the accused person shall be taken to the magistrateor officer incharge of a police station ithout reasonable delay. Section 57 magistrates court. Provisions as regard bail are contained in Sections 436-450 of Cr.P.C., 1973. The bail provisions aim at securing the release of a person who has been put behind bars as an under trial or charged with some bailable and non-bailable offences. The purpose is that a person need not be kept in the police lock-ups without being charged with any offence under the Criminal law. There are no hard and fast rules regarding grant or refusal of bail. Each case has to be considered on its own merits. The matter always calls for judicious exercise of discretion by the courts. Where the offence is of a serious nature the court has to decide the question of grant of bail in the light of such considerations as the nature and seriousness of the offence, the character of evidence, circumstances that are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of presence of the accused not being secured at the trial, the reasonable apprehension of a witness being tampered with, the larger interest of the public or such similar other considerations. In the bailable cases, the grant of bail is a matter of course. It may be given either by the police officer in-charge of the police station having the accused in his custody or by the court. The release may be ordered on the accused executing a bond and even without surety. In non-bailable cases, the accused may be released on bail either by the court or a police officer, but no bail can be granted where the accused appears on reasonable
FAIR TRIAL IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM 12

provides that the reasonable time should be

within 24 hours exclusive of the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the

grounds to be guilty of an offence punishable either with death or with imprisonment for life. This rule does not apply to a person under 16 years of age, a woman, or a sick or infirm person. No doubt, liberty of a person must be zealously safeguarded by the court, nonetheless, when a person is accused of a serious offence like murder, and his successive bail applications are rejected on merit there being prima-facie material, the prosecution is entitled to place correct facts before the court; liberty of the accused on bail should not be construed as the sole concern of the court. The Supreme Court of India has, however, held that though a person accused of a bailable offence is entitled to be released on bail pending his trial, if his conduct subsequent to his release is found to be prejudicial to a fair trial, he forefeits his right to be released on bail and such forefeiture can be made effective by invoking the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Section 438 of Cr.P.C.,1973 provides a unique provision for grant of "anticipatory bail." the necessity for granting anticipatory bail arises mainly because sometimes influential persons tried to implicate their rivals in false cases for the purpose of disgracing or for other purposes by getting detained in jails for some days. Apart . . . from false cases where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to abscond, or otherwise misuse his liberty while on bail, there seems no justification to require him first to submit to custody, remain in prison for some days and then apply for bail." 18. Appeal, Reference, Review and Revision The criminal justice system provides measures for preferring appeal, reference, review or revision in order to avoid miscarriage of justice.19 If the finding reached by the trial court is based on plausible reasons or the trial court's findings cannot be said to be unreasonable, the appellate court should be slow in disturbing the trial court's finding of fact even if it was possible to reach a different conclusion on the record because the trial judge has the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses and the initial presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is not weakened by his acquittal. The Constitution of India also provides that an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court for any judgement,or final order of the high court in a criminal proceeding, if the High Court certifies that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. However, where the High Court refuses to give such a certificate, the Supreme Court may, on being satisfied that

18 19

See 41st report of the Law Commission of India 374-412 of CrPc, 1973.

FAIR TRIAL IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM 13

the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution, grant special leave to appeal from such judgement, or final order or determination or sentence. It further states that an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgement, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court, if the High Court (a) has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to death or (b) has withdrawn for trials before itself any case from any court subordinate to its authority and has on such trials convicted the accused person and sentenced him to death or (c) certifies that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court. Pre-Trial It is the statutory right of the police to carry out the investigation of a crime before a prosecution is launched, and it cannot be interfered with by the courts.20 It may be observed that the functions of the judiciary and of the police are complimentary, not overlapping; the court's function begins when a charge is preferred before it and not until then. The accused person may be kept in the custody of the police for a period of 15 days, thus enabling the police to complete the investigation of the crime. However, a total period of the custody may be up to 60 days when the investigation relates to a serious offence or 90 days when the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years,and such period shall be construed judicial custody and not police custody. If the police cannot complete the investigation within 90 days then the accused person shall be released on bail. The investigation process begins on an information given to a police officer and such information is known as the First Information Report. The First Information Report is an important document in a criminal trial and may be put in evidence to support or contradict the evidence of the person who gave the information. The objective of the First Information Report is to set the criminal law in motion and from the point of view of the investigating agency to obtain information about the alleged criminal activities so as to be able to take suitable steps to trace and to bring to book the guilty. The criminal trial process makes it clear that trial should be fair and as such it has been emphasised that confession made to police shall be non-admissible; confession extracted by

20

154-176 of CrPc, 1973

FAIR TRIAL IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM 14

torture or third degree method can be pleaded at trial. Confession as to the commission of an offence must be voluntary and recorded before a Magistrate or a respectable person. The Cr.P.C, and Indian Evidence Act a proprio vigro state that a confession made by an accused person to a police officer is inadmissible in evidence; if a person in police custody desires to make a confession he must do so in the presence of a Magistrate. A Magistrate shall record the confession if he is satisfied that it is voluntary. An accused kept either in the custody of police or judicial custody has to be provided with humane and hygienic living conditions during lock-ups. This is so because the accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty. Jail Manuals prescribe that there ought not be overcrowdedness in the cells; the undertrials should be provided with recreational facilities. Trial Stage A criminal trial begins with the filing of a case. The Cr.P.C, states that "no court shall take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation and the period of limitation shall be: (a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only; (b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year; (c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years; (d) the period of limitation in relation to offences which are punishable with more severe punishment shall be determined by the court if the offence is punishable with imprisonment exceeding three years or severe punishments. The object is to prevent the parties from filing cases after a long time as a result of which material evidence may vanish and also to prevent the filing of vexations and belated prosecutions.

FAIR TRIAL IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM 15

Every trial begins with the charges and every charge shall state the offence with which the accused is charged.21 The charge shall give the accused full notice of the offence charged against him. The purpose of the charge is to tell the accused person as precisely and concisely as possible of the matter with which he is charged and must convey to him with sufficient clarity and certainty what the prosecution intends to prove against him and of which he has to clear himself. A criminal trial may take place either before a Magistrate or Court of Sessions as the nature of the case may be.22 A. Mode of Taking and Recording Evidence It is obligatory that evidence for prosecution and defence should be taken in the presence of the accused.23 A trial is vitiated by failure to examine the witnesses in the presence of the accused; mere cross examination in the presence of the accused is not sufficient. Speedy Trials It is imperative that every criminal trial should be completed speedily, expeditiously and efficiently. The Supreme Court of India in August 1996 has expressed that the trial court should not waste its time when it is fairly satisfied that there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction. If the trial court judge is almost certain that the trial would only be an exercise in futility or a sheer waste of time, it is advisable to truncate or snip the proceedings at the stage of framing the charge under relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C., and discharge the accused. Though it is imperative to complete the trial speedily, expeditiously and efficiently yet there are irritations with the criminal trial process during pre-trial as well as trial stages. For instance, the police which are to complete the investigation of crime within the prescribed time limits consume much more time than prescribed by law. This results in the languishing of the undertrials in jails for a longer period than the period of the conviction. The adversary procedure is also responsible for the delayed trials and there are studies which tell that delay is a riddle wrapped in mystery inside an enigma. Indecisiveness is the cause of both delay and
21 22

211-224 of CrPc, 1973. 225-265 of CrPc, 1973. 23 272-299 of CrPc, 1973.

FAIR TRIAL IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM 16

unpleasantness. It could be avoided if detention on false grounds is eased; adjournments just on demands are discouraged; strike and cessation by an advocate is given a full stop.

CONCLUSION
One Principal object of criminal law is to protect society by punishing the offenders. However, justice and fair play require that no one be punished without a fair trial. A person might be under a thick cloud of suspicion of guilt, he might have been even caught redhanded, and yet he is not to be punished unless and until he is tried and adjudged to be guilty by a competent court. In the administration of justice it is of prime importance that justice should not only be done but must also appear to have been done. Further, it is one of the cardinal principles of criminal law that everyone is presumed to be innocence unless his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt in a trial before a impartial and competent court. Therefor it becomes absolutely necessary that every person accused of crime is brought before the court for trial and that all the evidence appearing against him is made available to the court for deciding as to his guilt or innocence. After so many provisions and laws people are still not having a fair trial. In order to have adequate insights into fair trial functionally rather than structurally it is imperative to have an in-depth study of trial courts. Such a study would dispel the complaint against the judicial system of the country. As such complaints are based on facts that, "higher courts are right because they are superior, not superior because they are right." The trial judge, in fact, handles the bulk of judicial business. It may however, be not conceived that the justices do not want the people to understand the judicial function; unfortunately, there are relatively few people to understand, interpret and explain the court's role in wider terms. In a sense people know less about the case than they do about the Parliament or the political parties. Trial judges handle the bulk of judicial business because they preside over trials among other things including management of case processing, approval of plea bargaining, supervision of the settlement process, monitoring remedial decrees--they as such experience the drama of
FAIR TRIAL IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM 17

the adversary process. This inevitably influences judicial decision-making and behaviour. A trial judge is not a mechanical scale or computer but is a human being. So the trial judges vary in their respective qualities of intelligence, perspective, attentiveness and other mental and emotional characteristics of operation while they are listening to and observing witnesses. Fatigue of the trial judge, that is, after how many cases the trial judge cannot function at ease and the cases heard and tried in fatigue may hamper or affect the fair trial, may be one assumption amongst others to make an in-depth study of trial courts in order to have an assessment of fair trial in criminal proceedings that is functional.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books-: R.V.Kelkar, criminal procedure 3rd edition, 1993 Ratanlal Dhirajlal, criminal procedure, 3rd edition, 1998 Chaudhary , criminal procedure, 3rd edition, 1995 Dr. N.V. Paranjape, The Code of Criminal Procedure,2nd Edition, Central Law Agency, Allahabad. S.N.Misra, The Code of Criminal Procedure,14th Edition, Central Law Publication, Allahabad The code of criminal procedure code, 1973 The constitution of India

Internet source:
http://www.ksl.edu.np/cpanel/pics/concept_of_fair_trial_awani.pdf http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/fair_trial.pdf www.humanrights.coe.int/Intro/eng/GENERAL/trial.htm

FAIR TRIAL IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM 18

FAIR TRIAL IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM 19

FAIR TRIAL IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM 20