Abstract

According to article 21 of the Indian Constitution, “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.”[1]The Apex Court in the case of Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secy, State of Bihar[2]perceiving the privilege to speedy trial as one of the branches of the rights presented under Article 21 of the Constitution has held, “No procedure which does not guarantee a necessarily speedy and fair preliminary or trial can be viewed as “reasonable, just and fair” and it would fall foul of Article 21. The Indian equity works or revolves itself around the legal maxim, “Fīatjūstitiaruatcælum” meaning, “Let justice be done, though the heavens fall.” This legal phrase is simple language signifies that justice should be carried out regardless of the situation or consequences.[3] In spite of this, cases of Wrongful prosecution/conviction and unjust imprisonment of an innocent individual are very normal nowadays. In each of such cases, individuals who are unjustly indicted, ensnared and detained for several valuable periods of their lives, even after an honourable exoneration, have not much of a gain as much as there is a loss. Besides being forced to live under social disgrace, the absence of statutory provisions or state systems providing for rehabilitative, restorative and compensatory measures to such victims and their relatives, who have to suffer equally, aggravates their distress. On the international level, the issue of wrongful prosecution, imprisonment, and conviction of innocent persons is distinguished as ‘miscarriage of justice’ that happens after a person has been unjustly prosecuted and faces unfair trial, yet is later observed to be truthfully innocent premised on another proof coming to the knowledge of the court. This paper thus aims to show an in-depth analysis of Wrongful Prosecution through various Indian cases and the approach of the courts in dealing with such cases, along with explaining the importance of a fair trial.

1. Introduction

Wrongful Prosecution is that sort of arraignment (prosecution) or a trial where procedural wrongdoing of the police or the prosecuting officers, agencies, or a complainant puts such person behind the bars, who is innocent to endure the trial of a wrongful capture, prosecution, and confinement and at the end of the day bringing about his acquittal. Wrongful prosecution incorporates each such act which is proposed to perpetrate an individual to trial or prosecution as opposed to what the law endorses. Such kind of a prosecution would be portrayed by callous negligence of procedural guidelines, fabricating the proof, concealment of justifiable proof, intimidation to make admission or confession, abuse of procedure of law, and so forth in order to convict the individual charged. Unjust prosecution of honest people including delay in the detainment of them has moved towards becoming, unfortunately, a significant and regular practice these days. In basic words, wrongful prosecution alludes to those cases where the individual, who was charged with the offence, is not the person who actually carried out the commission of the offence with which he or she has been charged with and the police or the prosecution occupied with some type of wrongful and malicious behaviour in examining as well as indicting the individual. Unfair or Wrongful prosecution includes those situations where procedural wrongdoings of the police or prosecutorial, whether vindictive or careless, bring about an illegitimate indictment of an individual, who was eventually vindicated, with a court mentioning an objective fact or recording a finding having that impact. The basic sentiment underlying these types of prosecution is that such an individual ought not to have been exposed to these dreadful procedures in the very first place.

Cases of such wrongful prosecution of innocent people, resulting inthe abuse of justice are reported in a large number in India. Such situations arise due to the gross negligence and misconduct by the police in the investigation. Some of the times, as a result of wanton production of confirmation and encroachment of the legitimate procedures to be sought after in the midst of the examination or assessment.

In India, as indicated by the most recent information discharged by the National Crime Bureau, the same number of as 68% of the detainees in 1,387 jails all over the nation are on or anticipating trials. This event implies that more than 66% of those grieving in prisons still can’t seem to be proven either guilty or innocent, by the standard of law. Amongst them, about 40% spend on an average of a half year in prison before being discharged. Some of them do longer time in prison since they don’t have the way to anchor bail and some of them, even before their trial arrive at an effective end, unfortunately, die as an offender.

2. Wrongful prosecution as an international issue

Globally, the issue concerning wrongful prosecution, imprisonment, and conviction of honest people is recognized as abuse and miscarriage of justice that happens after an individual has been illegitimately sentenced, yet is later observed to be truthfully innocent, which is based on another reality/verification becoming exposed in the court. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), sanctioned by India, additionally makes a commitment to the parties of the state to enact or order a law to remunerate the unfortunate victim of such cases of abuse of justice.

Article 14(6) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) provides rights directly on and for the victims of an unfair prosecution, which is therefore turned around or acquitted on the revelation of new important facts setting up indisputably that there has been abuse of the process of equity, to be repaid or compensated as indicated by law. Moreover, Article 9(5) of ICCPR states, “Any individual who has been the casualty of unlawful prosecution or confinement will have an enforceable ideal to remuneration.” A few countries all over the world have changed over their responsibility under Article 14(6) ICCPR into law by either verbatim reception of the Article under their domestic enactment, or by presenting discretion on judicial or administrative bodies to decide if to grant remuneration, or by making use of general powers of the domestic government to make ex-gratia payment.

Regardless of ratifying the International Covenant, India has till date neglected to give any domestic or even necessary enactment to recovery and remuneration of unfortunate casualties of malicious/wrongful prosecution and imprisonment. The exploited people are left to depend on remedies that are limited and accessible to them under the present legitimate structure. Hence, relief and remedy might be looked for by filing suit for damages for the tort of malignant or malicious prosecution or by summoning provisions provided under the criminal law. Indian Courts, perceiving the sanctity and innocence of a person’s entitlement to life and individual freedom, as provided under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, have additionally practiced their writ and inherent jurisdiction by conceding compensation to such unfortunate casualties in appropriate cases. Nonetheless, certain earlier experiences have demonstrated that such remedies have stayed rambling and regularly demonstrated terribly inadequate to take into account the prerequisites of all kinds of similar situations, collectively. 

However, according to the Law Commission of India, the criteria of abuse or miscarriage of justice given under Article 14(6) of the covenant is deficient to defeat the inconsistencies or weaknesses of the criminal equity framework in India. Law Commission has recognized that such a restricted definition would not be sufficient or it would neglect to oblige all circumstances. The commission suggested that a circumstance where, however, the injured individual is at last vindicated, in any case, had to experience or go through the trauma of unlawful and unfair confinement, torment in police authority, long imprisonment, and so on isn’t secured under the constrained or restricted parameters given under this Article. Law Commission has additionally recognized that restricted technical advancements and absence of powers of investigative offices rarely leaves any extent of the revelation of new facts demonstrating verifiable innocence of the convict. Simultaneously, according to the Law Commission, if the standard of abuse and miscarriage of justice is set as an extensive stretch of imprisonment, it would forget about those cases where the injured individual may not be in jail during his time of prosecution (being discharged on bail), nonetheless, endured because of such unfair indictment, delayed trial, social disgrace, loss of business and other employment, and so on. In this manner, the Law Commission has suggested that the standard to decide “miscarriage of justice” in India ought to be of illegitimate prosecution. According to the Law Commission, the standard of improper (wrongful) indictment or prosecution ought to be the best for recognizing the instances of abuse of judicial process as it legitimately targets procedural and prosecutorial wrongdoing, which gives off an impression of being one of the essential sources of genuine mistakes whose outcome is in the innocent individuals being held blameworthy of offences they did not actually commit. 

3. Remedies for wrongful prosecution available in India

There are three principal remedies accessible to an individual in India, who havebeen unjustly detained and look for alleviation as remuneration. The remedies are-Public Law Remedy, Criminal Law Remedy, and Common Law Remedy.

1. Public Law Remedy

As already known, wrongful prosecution encroaches upon fundamental privileges or rights of the individuals accused, such individuals can implore the writ jurisdiction in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the constitution of India or in any High Court of jurisdiction under Article 226 and from these writ petitions, get the help or relief of remuneration to the unfortunate casualties who have gone through social, mental and physical agony. A chain of such decisions subsequent to the landmark Bhagalpur blinding case[4] wherein, the police officers poured acid into the eyes of 31 individuals who were going through trial and thereby blinded them, maintained the state’s vicarious liability for maltreatment of powers by its representatives or officers. They established and fixed monetary remuneration as a suitable and independent public law remedy. The Bhagalpur blinding case had made criminal law history in India by turning into the first in which the Indian Supreme Court ordered for remuneration for infringement of basic or fundamental human rights. The primary issue in profiting a remedy under Public Law is the non-attendance of a structure to ascertain the measure of remuneration for infringement, for example, unlawful detainment, and wrongful prosecution and so on. This remedy, in this way, is established on a case-to-case approach, which is usually behind in consistency, and which is arbitrary and vague when connected to other cases or situations.

1. Private Law Remedy

Under remedy provided by private laws, the individual who has been wrongfully prosecuted or indicted can file a common suit for pecuniary or monetary damages against the State under the vicarious liability of the State. The illegitimately indicted individual can file both the cases at the same time. A case for remuneration for unjust acts done by organizations and agencies of the State is frequently sought beforethe Civil Courts which make some portion of the remedy of the civil law accessible to the accused. Despite the fact that Private Law or Civil Law remedy against the State is viewed to be ideal, it is frequently an unnecessarily stretched procedure and getting relief from Courts ends up troublesome as that could take up a lot of time and expense of the accused.

• Criminal Law Remedy

Remedies under Criminal Law give another road to redressal accessible to an unfortunate casualty of wrongful prosecution. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 chapter IX makes those offences punishable, which include fabricating records, perjury, illicit imprisonment and commitment to the trial of accused who is innocent by an officer of police. Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code is of great importance in this context as it punishes the organization of false criminal procedures or erroneously charging an individual of wrongdoing. The Section is made applicable to all people regardless of whether they are public officials or not. The basic component in the provision is that such a procedure is more likely to be founded without just or legal ground. To prove this aspect is no simple undertaking, as most of the time, prosecutorial failings emerge from fundamental and institutional issues tormenting the Police.

The courts in India have often communicated their worries on the troubling state of the detainees who are experiencing trial, who are wrongfully prosecuted and in many cases, compensated to an extent for the wrong done to such unfortunate victims of the pernicious and unjust indictment, confinement, and conviction. One such case is of High Court of Delhi where on 30th May 2017 on account of Babloo Chauhan @ Dabloo versus State Govt. of NCT of Delhi[5], it communicated grave worry about the condition of innocent people who are wrongfully prosecuted, detained for violations that they didn’t even commit. The Delhi High Court, for this particular case solicited contributions from Prof. (Dr.) G.S. Bajpai, Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice and Registrar, National Law University, Delhi by designating him as amicus curiae.

Prof Bajpai, while explaining wrongful prosecution referred to a judgement of the Supreme Court in the case ofKashmira Singh v. State of Punjab[6]. The Apex Court in this case observed that, “The practice not to release on bail a person who has been sentenced to life imprisonment was evolved in the High Courts and in this Court on the basis that once a person has been found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment, he should not be let loose, so long as his conviction and sentence are not set aside, but the underlying postulate of this practice was that the appeal of such person would be disposed of within a measurable distance of time, so that if he is ultimately found to be innocent, he would not have to remain in jail for an unduly long period. The rationale of this practice can have no application where the Court is not in a position to dispose of the appeal for five or six years. It would indeed be a travesty of justice to keep a person in jail for a period of five or six years for an offence which is ultimately found not to have been committed by him. Would it be just at all for the Court to tell a person: “We have admitted your appeal because we think you have a prima facie case, but unfortunately we have no time to hear your appeal for quite a few years and, therefore, until we hear your appeal, you must remain in jail, even though you may be innocent?” What confidence would such administration of justice inspire in the mind of the public? It may quite conceivably happen, and it has, in fact, happened in a few cases in this Court, that a person may serve out his full term of imprisonment before his appeal is taken up for hearing. Would a judge not be overwhelmed with a feeling of contrition while acquitting such a person after hearing the appeal? Would it not be an affront to his sense of justice? Of what avail would the acquittal be to such a person who has already served out his term of imprisonment or at any rate a major part of it? It is, therefore, absolutely essential that the practice which this Court has been following in the past must be reconsidered and so long as this Court is not in a position to hear the appeal of an accused within a reasonable period of time, the Court should ordinarily, unless there are cogent grounds for acting otherwise, release the accused on bail in cases where special leave has been granted to the accused to appeal against his conviction and sentence.”

4. Judgement of the court regarding Remedies for Wrongful Prosecution

There isn’t any statutory plan or law in our nation at present for remunerating the individuals who are the victims or who have been prosecuted wrongfully. The cases of those being vindicated by the courts, be it trial courts, high courts or the Apex Court after long periods of detainment are not rare, it is unfortunately frequent. These unfortunate victims are left to their own methods of reconstruction or recovery since so many precious years of their lives have been spent in the lockups, behind the high jail walls.

Section 436-A[7], which came into effect from 23rd June 2006, licenses discharge of the under trials detainees who, on a personal bond, have gone through half of the maximum time of detainment for that offence. The intention behind this section is surely praiseworthy, however, a doubt with respect to its successful execution still persists. In any case, it’s anything but a response to the difficulties which an innocent individual has to go through who is pronounced as not guilty only he or she has spent over 10 years in prison.

With respect to the subject of repaying the casualties of the wrongdoing, Sections 357 A to C of the CrPC[8] provide for theprovisions for remuneration to the casualty of the crimes. The successful execution of these arrangements pivots on the coordinated endeavours of authorities of legal services and governments. With respect to paying compensation to people who have been baselessly arrested, Section 358 CrPC offers some relief and help in this area. However, this provision neglects to recognize the different manners by which not only the detainee, who may, at last, be pronounced to be innocent, but the family and close relatives of the detainee face hardship and deprivation as well. Especially piercing is the situation of the wife, the children and the old parents of the detainee who can’t take the benefit of legal remedies for their misfortunes. The Delhi High Court has time and again ventured in to arrange for provisions of shelter, instructive and wellbeing requirements of children whose guardians, either mother, father or both the parents, are serving a sentence in prison.

In this manner, there is a pressing requirement for a real, particularly authoritative structure for giving assistance and recuperation to losses of unfair arraignment and confinement. Despite whether this should be an in-depth institution or plan that considers both the necessities of the victim of the wrongdoing, additionally the individuals who are treacherously kept, including the members of their family and people who are dependent on them, or these issues must be looked into for consideration in different strategies is a matter for counsel for people who are concerned about the same. With reference to the subject to compensating those misguidedly indicted, the questions and doubts as regards to the conditions whereupon such help would be accessible, at what point and in what form are matters requiring thought and consideration. This task best left to the people vested with the authority of suggesting the assembly on the legislative measures expected to fill the conspicuous hole. Most importantly, Justice R.K.Gupta, in this case, underlined the critical requirement for a legislative structure for giving help and aid to casualties of such unfair prosecution, imprisonment and asked the Law Commission to attempt a complete assessment of the previously mentioned issue and consequently make a proposal or recommendation to the Government of India.

5. Recommendations of the law commission

Law Commission of India chaired by Justice B.S. Chauhan, presented its report on August 30, 2018, on ‘Wrongful Prosecution (Miscarriage of Justice): Legal Remedies’. The report pursues a Delhi High Court mandate in 2017 where the Commission was approached to look at the solutions for improper or wrongful prosecution of the innocent. The Report of the law commission gives a review of the remedies accessible to the innocent under the current laws and talks about their insufficiencies. The Commission, as needs are, suggests sanctioning of a legitimate arrangement for the redressal of instances of unjust arraignment or wrongful prosecution, to give help to the casualties of an illegitimate indictment regarding financial and non-fiscal compensation, (for example, counselling, emotional and mental health administrations, professional/business skills’ improvements and so on.) inside a statutory structure. The Report enlists the core standards of the suggested system characterizing ‘wrongful prosecution’ i.e., cases in which case for compensation can be recorded, assignment of a Special Court to choose these cases of compensation, nature of procedures – course of events for deciding claims, and so on. Money related and different factors are to be considered while deciding the compensation, arrangements for interim pay in specific cases, evacuation of exclusion because of wrongful conviction/prosecution and so on.

This report takes a gander at the issue from the perspective of the Criminal Justice framework of India and prescribes ‘wrongful prosecution’ to be the benchmark of abuse of judicial process and justice in India, as against ‘wrongful incarceration’ and ‘wrongful conviction’. Wrongful Prosecution would incorporate situations where the blamed and not the blameworthy for the offence, and the police and/or the prosecution occupied with some type of unfortunate behaviour in researching or arraigning the individual. It would incorporate both the situations where the individual invested energy in jail just as well as where he didn’t; and situations where the denounced was found not guilty by the preliminary court or where the accused was indicted by at least one court however, was at last observed to be not guilty by the Higher Court. A draft Bill, articulating the previously mentioned, has been added with the Report as the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Bill, 2018.

The Commission noticed that at present there is no authoritative system to give help to the individuals who are unjustly indicted. Key proposals of the Commission include:

1. Legal system: The Commission prescribed alterations to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), to give pay (compensation) in instances of abuse and miscarriage of justice bringing about the wrongful prosecution of people. Miscarriage of justice alludes to the unfair or vindictive indictment, paying little respect to whether it prompts conviction or confinement.
2. Cause of action: The reason for the victim or the complainant to file a claim for compensation would be that he was unfairly arraigned or prosecuted for a situation that ended in his exoneration. Following may include wrongful prosecution: (a) malignant indictment, for example where one documents a case of evidence against the petitioner without confidence and belief in his blame for the wrongdoing, and (b) arraignment or prosecution without any good faith, with malicious intention for example where one documents a case against the petitioner carelessly without due care and consideration.

• Who is qualified to apply: A case for remuneration might be looked for mischief and harm caused to the innocent individual’s mind, character and reputation, or property on account of being wrongfully prosecuted. Such a case can be filed by the individual who has been falsely accused, or his approved agent, or his beneficiaries or lawful heirs (upon his passing away).

1. Special Courts: The Commission saw that cases in connection to such compensation for false and wrongful prosecution ought to be settled quickly, taking regard of the interest and need of the claimant. Along these lines, it suggested setting up of special courts in every district of the country for choosing remuneration claims.
2. Nature of proceedings in the court: Special Courts have to follow the prescribed summary procedure for the purpose of adjudication and inquiry herein. All the procedures in the above-mentioned special courts will be pursued by speedier methods for a speedier transfer of the case. Further, the denounced will be required to prove all those wrong behaviours which lead to his unfair arraignment. The case will be chosen by gauging the “balance of probabilities” i.e., the case will be ruled in favour of that party whose case seems to be valid to the court. These Special Courts, after they have received a claim for compensation from the accused, shall give a notice to both the contesting parties along with the Central and the State Government, as the case may be. After they have received the notice they are given an opportunity of being heard, inquire into the claim, and thereafter make an award which determines the compensation. It may also ask the appropriate authorities to begin the proceedings against the erring official or officials in accordance with the procedure of law.
3. Compensation: The law Commission perceived that it may not be conceivable at present to set out a fixed amount of monetary remuneration to be paid. It prescribed changes to the Criminal Procedure Code to incorporate core values to be trailed by the court while deciding the measure of pay. These incorporate the graveness of the offence, seriousness of punishment imposed, duration of confinement, harm to the wellbeing of the individual, damage to the character of the individual, and loss of employment opportunities. The Commission further suggested that pay under the law ought to incorporate both financial (money-related) help as well as non-monetary help (such, as counselling administrations and professional aptitude advancement). It further underlined that the non-monetary help ought to incorporate arrangements to evacuate disqualifications connected to such wrongful prosecutions. These incorporate exclusions that influence the individual’s odds of getting into business and getting admitted to educational establishments and institutions. The Commission, likewise prescribed that an arrangement for the payment of interim compensation be incorporated into the law, for situations where the claimant may need quick help. As justice conceded is justice denied, equivalently, the proverb, justice rushed is justice covered is correspondingly substantial and particularly evident. Consequently, sufficient, reasonable and becoming conscious with the idea of its conditions is an essential of natural justice and adjustment of accommodation.
4. Unfair trial

The current circumstance of India can be appropriately summarized in the quote, “Justice delayed is justice denied.” Justice is, nonetheless, difficult to describe, yet can be said that it changes according to the conditions and individuals. Since we live in a democratically ruled country where people are regulated by the laws of the country, it is important to convey justice on time to the abused individuals to control the instances of miscarriage of justice in the country. It is appropriately called the shield of guiltlessness and the gatekeeper or watchman of civil rights. This is so in light of the way that like Martin Luther expressed, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Events of such abuses of justice, in the form of unfair trials, are various in India. One such case isKapil Kumar Beri v/s The State of Delhi (N.C.T. of Delhi)[9]where Delhi High Court, on 19th December 2018, released an innocent father who was accused by his daughter of raping and assaulting her multiple times, after a 17-year-old trial he went through. However, the father already died 10 months before his death, before he could take a sigh of relief from the unfair and dreadful trial which he had to go through. Under the proceedings in the trial court, the accused father was convicted and sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment, for the offence he never committed.

Facts were that the victim, a 16-year-old young woman suddenly disappeared, and the father, a circuit testing man (circuit repairman) in the Military Engineering Services filed a missing dispute or grievance with the police. Later when the girl was found, she was pregnant, and by then she had recorded a complaint against her father accusing or reprimanding him for assaulting and raping her. The court saw that the complaint filed by the father was then closed without paying much attention to it.

The young woman in her complaint accused her father of raping and assaultingher for quite some time at someplace in the years 1991 and 1996. She had stated that her father assaulted her at whatever point she was found secluded from everyone else and alone. In any case, this statement was totally rejected and denied by the parents of the victim as well as their family relatives.

The father, on the disappearance of her daughter, had stated that his daughter was allured and taken away by a young boy named Bhushan, and the FIR for the same was filed in 1996. The father also stated that Bhushan was once beaten up by the brother of the prosecutrix because he eve-teased her while she was returning from her school and complaint against him was also filed in the police station. As per the daughter (victim), the father had been ambushing and assaulting her for quite a while, starting from the year 1991, when the family was in Udhamppur, Jammu, and Kashmir. The unfortunate episode of the daughter being sexually assaulted by her father, for the first time, occurredin 1991 when the mother went to attend her brother-in-law’s memorial services.

Observations of the court with respect to unfair trial in the above case

The court observed that nothing kept the young woman from complaining about the entire unfortunate occurrence to her mother or any other close relative of hers. The court moreover incorporated that given that the young woman was 12 when according to her the assault on her started, the subsequent physical challenges and desolation would have been noticeable, especially to the mother of the victim.

The court said that the father’s intrigue and dissent for a DNA test were completely overlooked. The court expressed, “This was neither a reasonable trial nor a reasonable or necessary test. The boy was never taken for DNA testing.”[10] The accused father, along with his request for a DNA test, presented his service records which clearly showed that the incident of the victim being raped by the accused never could have occurred as in 1991, when the accused’s wife was not at the house for some time, he was also awayfrom his family, posted in the field while the family lived 40 km away and didn’t get any leave. Bhushan was never acquired for DNA testing. The FIR lodged by the appellant asserting offence under Section 363 IPC (punishment for kidnapping) by Bhushan was shut with no probe, simply because a counter form as the explanation of the indictment had gone to the fore. The examination was evidently biased and uneven. The court at this juncture could onlydespise the inaction of the trial court.

The assessment was clearly uneven. From the perspective of this court, there are a number of important facts and evidence which have not been paid any heed by the lower court and which make the evidence provided by the prosecutrix less convincing andsketchy.

Justice R K Gauba said that the accused, since day one, had been trying to make everyone believe that some boy named Bhushan had captured and tempted the victim, who was later,when in January 1996, an FIR for rape was filedby the accused, found to be pregnant, yet, his questions were not given much importance by both investigating officer as well as the trial court.

The postponement was sure to be unnecessary and there were found to be no authentic clarifications behind failure to hold up the protest. This conduct was without any doubt, unnatural and significantly improbable.

The court further expressed the view that neither the researching association nor the trial court was sensible towards the defendant at any period of time during the procedure, this similarly vitiating the outcome of the probe and the trial[11], acquitting the accused, who passed away in February2018. On a similar aspect of not paying attention to the accused’s request for aconduction of a DNA test, the Delhi high court additionally included and held that the inspecting officers and trial court evidently seemed to have taken a firm ground, on not such a firm basis, that there was no requirement or necessityfor it as in their opinions, it was a straightforward case, because they were already convinced of the guilt of the father, completely overlooking requests made by the father, and the evidencewhich rendered the records presented by the daughter as doubtful.

“While it is true that the evidence of the prosecutrix deserves to be given weight and in certain circumstances can be acted upon without any corroboration, in cases of incest, there is always a need for greater and more acute scrutiny, inasmuch as such allegations against persons related by blood (own biological father, for example) smack of bestial instinct and total absence of basic human values and discretion. It is sad to note that the trial Judge blindly accepted the prosecution story without going into the aspects which render it highly improbable, virtually impossible. The erroneous approach of the trial court has led to a serious miscarriage of justice in the present case unreasonably holding the biological father of raping his own daughter in the teeth of loaded circumstances showing her to be of wayward ways and possibly in liaison with a male acquaintance.”[12]

“Generally speaking, the evidence of the prosecutrix is given pre-dominant consideration. But, if the testimony of the prosecutrix suffers from lacunae or if her version, upon scrutiny, against the backdrop of evidence, read in entirety, is found to be improbable it cannot become the basis of conviction. An inference of guilt can be drawn only if the facts proved are wholly consistent with the guilt of the accused and in case of conclusions to the contrary, the court being duty-bound to reject the charge. After all, there is no presumption that the statement of the prosecutrix is always correct or liable to be accepted even though it suffers from embellishments or exaggerations.” Justice R K Gupta said.

 In the case ofNarender Kumar vs. State (NCT of Delhi)[13] the Apex Court held that there is a need to protect the accused against chances of false implications. The court thus observed that “However great the suspicion against the accused and however strong the moral belief and conviction of the court, unless the offence of the accused is established beyond a reasonable doubt on the basis of legal evidence and material on the record, he cannot be convicted for an offence. There is an initial presumption of innocence of the accused and the prosecution has to bring home the offence against the accused by reliable evidence. The accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt.”

The court concluded its 22-page decision by expressing its disagreement on the decision given by the trial court and believing the methodology of the preliminary court towards the case to be totally unfair and erroneous, the impugned judgement of the trial court was rejected.

7. Importance of a fair trial

Article 21 of the Constitution of India also incorporates the right to fair trials to its citizens.This privilege to a fair trial is basic andimportant protection to guarantee that people are shielded from unlawful hardship of their basic rights and opportunities, in particular of the fundamental right to freedom and security of an individual. This right lays on the essential guideline of presumption of innocence. In the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India[14], the Apex Court, held that the procedure envisaged under Article 21 must be “just, fair and reasonable” and not “discretionary, whimsical or oppressive”.

The idea of a fair trial depends on the essential belief system that the State and its officers have the obligation to bring the guilty parties under the watchful eye of the law. In their fight against wrongdoing and misconduct, State and its officials can’t, in any case, spurn the respectability of conduct of the state and have a plan of action to extra-legitimate strategies for finding out the crimes and even their culprits.

Fair trials are the best way to avoid the abuse of justice and uphold the confidence of citizens in the justice framework of the country. It is a fundamental part of an equitable society. Each individual blamed for wrongdoing ought to have their innocence or guiltlessness resolved by a fair and effective procedure of law, they ought to be safeguarded from being wrongfully prosecuted. Be that as it may, it is not just about securing suspects and respondents. It likewise makes societies more secure and more grounded. Without fair trials, unfortunate casualties can have no hope and confidence that justice will be brought to them. Without fair trials, trust in the government and the standard of law breaks down.

In spite of the significance of fair trials being perceived by the countries around the globe, this fundamental human right is being mishandled every day, all the time. How can they demand good conduct from others when their very own conduct is accountable, uncalled for and unlawful? In this way, the technique embraced by the State must be reasonable, fair and just. Human life ought to be esteemed and an individual blamed for any offence ought not to be held guilty and punished except in the cases where the accused has been given the opportunity of being heard by conducting a reasonable trial and he has been proved blameworthy of the offence.

The Apex Court in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and ors v. State of Gujarat and ors.[15] held that “each one has an inbuilt right to be dealt with fairly in a criminal trial. Denial of a fair trial is as much injustice to the accused as it is to the victim and to society. Fair trial obviously would mean a trial before an impartial judge, a fair prosecutor and an atmosphere of judicial calm. Fair trial means a trial in which bias or prejudice for or against the accused, the witness or the cause which is being tried, is eliminated.”

The Supreme Court of India in the case of Rattiaram v. State of Madhya Pradesh[16]observed that the fair trial is the heart of criminal jurisprudence. A right to afair trial is a fundamental right which flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Also, denial of the fair trial is the crucifixion of human rights. Also, the Apex Court in Mohd. Hussain @ Julfikar Ali v. The State (Govt. Of Nct)[17] observed that every person, therefore, has a right to a fair trial by a competent court in the spirit of the right to life and personal liberty. Since the right to a fair trial is a fundamental right, it cannot be denied to any person by the virtue of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 

In a society that is democratic, even the rights provided to the accused are sacred and should, therefore, be respected, however, blamed for an offence, doesn’t turn him into a non-individual. In a significant case of Kishore Singh Ravinder Dev v. Territory of Rajasthan[18], it was said that the laws of India, for example, procedural, evidentiary and constitutional have made various explanatory provisions for shielding the privileges of denounced/accused with the view to secure his dignity as an individual and giving him advantages of a fair, just and impartial trial.

Presumption of innocence and not of guilt is the principle with which every criminal trial begins. The prosecution has the duty to show and prove the guilt of the accused and only after when the prosecution has proved the above and rests his case in front of the court, no new records or new facts with respect to the charge of the denounced would be recorded by the courts. This assumption supposedly flows from the Legal Latin principle eiincumbitprobatio qui dicit, non qui negat, which means, the burden of proof lies on who claims, not on who denies the charge.[19] It is the obligation of the investigator and counsel for defence just as every public authority engaged with a case to pursue the standard ofinnocent until proven guilty and not to merely assume the guilt of an innocent person beforehand, based on their own vague notions.

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Kali Ram v. State of H.P.[20] observed that“it is no doubt that wrongful acquittals are undesirable and shake the confidence of the people in the judicial system, much worse; however is the wrongful conviction of an innocent person. The consequences of the conviction of an innocent person are far more serious and its reverberations cannot be felt in a civilized society.”

The fundamental rule underlying this right is that a criminal trial should be heard by a fair court. Since one of the indicting party is the state and the police is an instrument of the state, it is necessary that the judiciary is isolated from all the control of the executive, either prompt oraberrant. In this way, the entire weight of a fair and unbiased trial lieson theIndian Judiciary.

Conclusion

Being a welfare State, India needs to take dynamic steps towards the liberation of the casualties of injustice. It becomes a stigma on justice if the general public and State proceed with its indifference towards its fellow beings, punishing and defaming them for offences never even thought of being carried out by them. The mechanism of the Indian legal system deals with the legal maxim, “Ubi jus ibiremidium” which means, where there is wrong there is a remedy. In spite of the fact that the unavailability of a remedy is no defence for non-protection of an individual’s rights, nonetheless, statutory arrangements and provisions do provide a guiding structure for the justice framework to function. Considerable time has slipped because of the unavailability of statutory arrangements for the security of victims of unfair trials leading to unfair trials and wrongful prosecutions. The opportunity has already come and it is high time that the State quit dismissing the situation of such casualties of the illegitimate and wrongful prosecution. Also, the State can no longer abscond or avoid its duty to give compensatory and rehabilitative measures to the casualties of such instances of abuse and miscarriage of justice. It is just when the State satisfies its responsibility towards its nationals, who have been exposed to foul play for the sake of the law, it can genuinely guarantee itself to be a welfare state. Obviously, the principle running at the core of equity is “Innocent until proven guilty” and not the other way around.

[1]INDIAN CONSTITUTION, Article 21.

[2]Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secy, State of Bihar, (1980) 1 S.C.C. 81.

[3]Jack Mosel,Op-Ed: Let Justice Be Done, Though the Heavens Fall, WordPress, (Oct 28, 2019 at 21:21PM)https://rfkin2008.wordpress.com/2009/01/14/op-ed-let-justice-be-done-though-the-heavens-fall/.

[4]Anil Yadav vs State of Bihar, (1982) 2 S.C.C. 195 (India).

[5]Babloo Chauhan @ Dabloo versus State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (2018) 247 DLT 31 (India).

[6]Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab,(1977) 4 S.C.C. 291 (India).

[7]CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, Section 436A, introduced by the amendment act of 2005.

[8]CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973.

[9]Kapil Kumar Beri v/s The State of Delhi (N.C.T. of Delhi),Crl.A. No. 704/2001.

[10] Ibid, para 35.

[11]Supra note 9, para 25.

[12]Supra note 9, para 26.

[13]Narender Kumar vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 7 S.C.C. 171, para 29.

[14]Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,(1978) 1 S.C.C. 248 (India).

[15]Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and ors v. State of Gujarat and ors, (2006) 3 S.C.C. 374 at 395.

[16]Rattiaram v. State of Madhya Pradesh,A.I.R. 2012 S.C. 1485 (India).

[17]Mohd. Hussain @ Julfikar Ali v. The State (Govt. Of Nct), Crl. A. No. 1091 of 2006, Para 11.

[18]Kishore Singh Ravinder Dev v. Territory of Rajasthan,(1981) 1 S.C.R. 995 (India).

[19]Carl D. Ceder,Any Lawyer Who Has Never Lost A Trial, CDC Attorney at Law (Sep 17, 2019 at 13:23PM), http://www.carlcederlaw.com/a-lawyer-who-has-never-lost-trial.

[20]Kali Ram v. State of H.P, (1973) 2 S.C.C. 808 (India).