Sessions Trials Procedure
What is a Sessions Trial?
A Sessions Trial is a trial conducted by a Sessions Court, which is a court of sessions having jurisdiction to try serious criminal offenses (like murder, rape, robbery, etc.). These courts derive their power from Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973.
When is a Sessions Trial Held?
Cases involving offenses punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for more than 7 years are tried by a Sessions Court.
A Magistrate conducts a preliminary inquiry (Section 190 and 202 CrPC) and commits the case to the Sessions Court if evidence is sufficient.
The Sessions Judge conducts the trial according to Chapters XVIII, XIX, and XX of the CrPC.
Procedure of Sessions Trial:
Commitment: After the magistrate frames charges, the case is committed to the Sessions Court.
Sessions Court Setup: Usually a single Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge conducts the trial.
Charges: The Sessions Judge frames charges under Section 228 CrPC.
Pleadings: Accused pleads guilty or not guilty.
Trial: Includes recording prosecution and defense evidence, cross-examination, and examination of witnesses.
Judgment: After hearing arguments, the Sessions Judge delivers the judgment.
Appeals: Appeals lie to the High Court under Section 372 CrPC.
Important Case Laws on Sessions Trial Procedure
1. K.K. Verma v. Union of India, AIR 1965 SC 845
Facts: The Supreme Court discussed the procedure for committing a case to the Sessions Court and the importance of the magistrate’s role in the committal process.
Issue: Whether the magistrate has jurisdiction and the duty to carefully examine evidence before committing a case for trial.
Holding: The Court held that the magistrate’s role is crucial and he must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to justify sending the accused to the Sessions Court. A frivolous or careless commitment is an abuse of process.
Significance: Established that the magistrate’s commitment should not be a mere formality but a judicial scrutiny.
2. State of Maharashtra v. Suresh, AIR 1991 SC 2121
Facts: A question arose whether the Sessions Court could proceed with the trial if charges were not framed correctly or if the accused was not properly informed.
Issue: Whether framing of charges is mandatory and whether failure affects the trial’s validity.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that framing of charge is a jurisdictional requirement under Section 228 CrPC and if it is not done properly, the trial would be void.
Significance: This case clarified the procedural safeguards that protect accused persons in Sessions Trials, emphasizing due process.
3. State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram, AIR 2006 SC 144
Facts: The accused challenged the Sessions Trial on the ground of irregularities in the trial procedure, including non-application of mind during committal and defective framing of charges.
Issue: Can procedural irregularities in a Sessions Trial be grounds to quash the trial?
Holding: The Supreme Court held that minor procedural irregularities cannot nullify the trial if the accused had a fair opportunity to defend. However, gross irregularities affecting the essence of justice can lead to quashing.
Significance: Balances procedural strictness with the principle of substantial justice.
4. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajesh Gautam, AIR 2003 SC 3054
Facts: In this case, the Court examined the role of Sessions Court when the accused pleads guilty and whether the court must still ensure voluntariness.
Issue: Whether the Sessions Judge can convict solely on a plea of guilt.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that while a plea of guilt can be accepted, the Sessions Judge must be satisfied that it is voluntary and free from coercion. The court must record reasons for accepting the plea.
Significance: Emphasized the procedural safeguard even in plea bargaining or admission cases in Sessions Trials.
5. Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1994 SC 1227
Facts: The Sessions Court convicted the accused without recording evidence properly.
Issue: Whether evidence must be recorded in Sessions Trial to uphold conviction.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that evidence is the backbone of the criminal trial and Sessions Courts must adhere strictly to rules of evidence and procedure. Conviction without proper evidence recording is invalid.
Significance: Reinforces the importance of evidence and procedure in Sessions Trials.
Summary of Sessions Trial Procedure & Jurisprudence
| Step | Requirement/Principle | Case Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Commitment by Magistrate | Magistrate must scrutinize evidence before commitment | K.K. Verma v. Union of India |
| Framing of Charges | Mandatory and jurisdictional for valid trial | State of Maharashtra v. Suresh |
| Procedural Irregularities | Minor irregularities do not nullify trial; fairness matters | State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram |
| Plea of Guilt | Must be voluntary, court must record reasons | State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajesh Gautam |
| Evidence Recording | Essential for conviction; must follow procedure | Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab |
RELATED Blog
0 comments