Procedural Criminal Law (Crpc & Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita)
Procedural Criminal Law in India: CrPC & Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)
1. What is Procedural Criminal Law?
Procedural Criminal Law governs the process of investigation, inquiry, trial, and enforcement of substantive criminal law. It lays down the rules and steps for arrest, bail, trial, evidence, sentencing, appeals, and other procedural safeguards to ensure justice is done fairly.
2. Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973
The CrPC is the primary procedural statute for criminal law in India.
It covers arrest, search, investigation, bail, charge framing, trial, judgment, sentencing, appeals, and revision.
It ensures procedural fairness and protects individual rights, balancing State power and citizen liberty.
The CrPC applies to the entire country (except Jammu & Kashmir earlier, now fully integrated).
3. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)
The BNSS is a proposed reform to replace the CrPC and other laws, aiming to consolidate and modernize criminal procedural laws.
It promises simplification, transparency, protection of rights, and speedy justice.
BNSS is still in draft stage; its provisions largely reflect CrPC principles but with innovations in victim rights, digital evidence, and alternative dispute resolution.
While not yet law, it is important to understand the BNSS as the future procedural code.
4. Key procedural concepts under CrPC (and BNSS)
Filing of FIR and investigation (Section 154 CrPC)
Arrest and detention safeguards (Sections 41-60 CrPC)
Bail provisions (Sections 436-450 CrPC)
Trial procedures: framing of charges, examination of witnesses, recording evidence, cross-examination
Rights of accused: right to counsel, right against self-incrimination
Summary and regular trials
Appeals and revisions
Special procedures for serious offenses, juvenile offenders
5. Landmark Case Laws on Procedural Criminal Law in India
Case 1: D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)
Facts:
Multiple cases of custodial deaths and torture in West Bengal police custody prompted the Supreme Court to lay down procedural safeguards to prevent police abuse.
Legal Issue:
What are the procedural safeguards during arrest and detention to prevent custodial violence?
Holding:
The Supreme Court issued 11 mandatory guidelines (known as “D.K. Basu guidelines”), including:
Police must identify themselves with name and badge number during arrest.
Arrest memo must be prepared and attested by a family member or witness.
The arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest and right to bail.
Medical examination of the detainee must be conducted at the time of arrest and thereafter.
Police station diary must be maintained.
Police must allow access to lawyers and family.
Significance:
This judgment safeguards procedural fairness during arrest and detention, reinforcing CrPC protections and human rights. It has been reaffirmed repeatedly and incorporated into BNSS drafts.
Case 2: Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994)
Facts:
The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) on procedural grounds.
Legal Issue:
Whether procedural safeguards like the right to counsel, right to cross-examine witnesses, and protection against self-incrimination are essential to fair trial?
Holding:
The Supreme Court upheld the importance of procedural fairness, emphasizing that denial of fundamental procedural rights violates Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty). The Court stressed:
The accused has the right to be defended by counsel.
Evidence must be produced and cross-examined.
Confessions must be voluntary.
Significance:
Affirms constitutional protection of procedural rights under CrPC and their mandatory enforcement in trials.
Case 3: Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979)
Facts:
Petitioners challenged the prolonged detention of undertrial prisoners beyond the maximum period of punishment for their alleged offenses.
Legal Issue:
Does prolonged detention of undertrials violate the fundamental right to life and liberty?
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that detention of undertrial prisoners for an unreasonable length of time violates Article 21. The Court ordered speedy trial and release of those unlawfully detained.
Significance:
This case emphasized procedural efficiency and speedy trial as part of due process under CrPC. It has led to reforms ensuring timely disposal of cases.
Case 4: Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010)
Facts:
The case challenged the constitutionality of using narco-analysis, polygraph, and brain-mapping tests on accused persons without consent.
Legal Issue:
Are these involuntary scientific techniques permissible under CrPC and Constitution?
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that involuntary administration of such tests violates Article 20(3) (right against self-incrimination) and Article 21 (right to privacy). Such tests can be used only with consent.
Significance:
Protects procedural rights of accused against forced confessions or invasive investigation techniques.
Case 5: Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014)
Facts:
The case dealt with arbitrary and unnecessary arrests under Section 498A (cruelty against married women).
Legal Issue:
Does CrPC mandate guidelines to avoid unnecessary arrests and to protect liberty?
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that arrests should be the exception, not the rule. Police must follow procedure under Section 41 CrPC, recording reasons for arrest, and avoid custodial detention unless absolutely necessary.
Significance:
Strengthened procedural safeguards on arrest, emphasizing liberty and preventing misuse of police power.
6. Summary: Procedural Law and Case Law Synergy
The CrPC and proposed BNSS ensure fair investigation, arrest, trial, and appeal processes.
Courts have repeatedly emphasized procedural safeguards to protect accused persons against arbitrary action.
Key cases have addressed custodial violence, right to counsel, speedy trial, protection against self-incrimination, and arrest safeguards.
These procedural guarantees uphold the rule of law and constitutional rights within criminal justice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments