IN RE: TO ISSUE CERTAIN GUIDELINES REGARDING INADEQUACIES AND DEFICIENCIES IN CRIMINAL TRIALS versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.
[2021] 4 S.C.R. 100, Supreme Court of India, 2021
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Issues
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
100
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 4 S.C.R.
   [2021] 4 S.C.R. 100
100
IN RE: TO ISSUE CERTAIN GUIDELINES REGARDING
INADEQUACIES AND DEFICIENCIES IN CRIMINAL TRIALS
v.
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.
(Suo Moto Writ (Crl) No(s). 01 of 2017)
APRIL 20, 2021
[S.A. BOBDE, CJI, L. NAGESWARA RAO AND
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Criminal trials: Draft Rules for expeditious and fair criminal
trials – Implementation of – Suo motu proceeding under Art. 32 –
This Court took notice of deficiencies occurring 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,
leading to prolonged proceedings – Also that there were
inadequacies in the practices and rules of High Courts, and as
such desirability of a uniform approach – Issuance notice by this
Court to the Registrar Generals of all High Courts, State
Governments and Union Territories to file their responses –
Responses filed by States/Union Territories and High Courts –
Thereafter, Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2020 prepared by the
stakeholders and said Draft Rules submitted for the consideration
of this Court – High Courts again called to file responses to Draft
Rules – On perusal of the responses, this Court again found either
reservation or divergence in opinion about the practice to be adopted
by few High Courts – Subsequently, this Court carried out necessary
amendments to the Draft Rules and Draft Rules finalized in terms
thereof– In view thereof, issuance of directions to all High Courts
to take expeditious steps to incorporate the Draft Rules of Criminal
Practice, 2021 as part of the rules governing criminal trials, and
ensure that the existing rules, notifications, orders and practice
directions are suitably modified, and promulgated within the
stipulated period – State Governments, as well as the Union of India
to carry out consequential amendments to their police and other
manuals, within the stipulated period – Judicial Notice – Constitution
of India – Art. 32
Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat (2001) 3
SCC 1 : [2001] 2 SCR  29 – referred to.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
101
Case Law Reference
[2001] 2 SCR  29 
referred to
Para 12
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Suo Moto Writ (Crl) No(s). 01 of
2017.
(Suo Motu Proceeding Under Article 32 of The Constitution)
K.M. Natraj, Vikramjit Banerjee, ASGs., D.S. Parmar, Saurabh
Mishra, AAGs., Sidharth Luthra, R. Basant, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija,
S. Nagamuthu, R. Balasubramanian, R. Bala, Dr. Manish Singhvi, P.N.
Ravindran, Soumya Chakraborty, P.H. Parekh, Sr. Advs., K.
Parameshwar, M.V. Mukunda, A. Karthik, Mehaak Jaggi, Vishnu, Ms.
A. Sregurupriya, Anandh Kannan N., Pranay Ranjan, Anmol Chandan,
Sachin Sharma, Ms. Neela Gokhale, B.V. Balram Das, Raj Bahadur
Yadav, Sachin Patil, Rahul Chitnis, Aaditya A. Pande, Geo Joseph, A.D.N.
Rao, Guntur Prabhakar, Abhimanyu Tewari, Ms. Eliza Bar, Subodh S.
Patil, Ms. Supriya Patil, Shekhar Raj Sharma, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Amit
Gupta, V. Balachandran, Siddharth Naidu, Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Keshav
Mohan, R.K. Awasthi, Prashant Kumar, Piyush Vatsa, Ms. Ritu Arora,
Santosh Kumar-I, P.S. Sudheer, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, M. Shoeb Alam,
Sunny Choudhary, Rovins F. Verma, Nishant Ramakantrao
Katneshwarkar, Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Ms. Anupama Ng., Karun
Sharma, Avijit Mani Tripathi, Shaurya Sahay, P.S. Negi, Ms. Aruna
Mathur, Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Avneesh Arputham, M/S. Arputham
Aruna and Co, Gopal Jha, Shreyash Bhardwaj, Ms. Shashi Juneja, Satish
Pandey, Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, Ms. Garima
Prashad, Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, Yajur Bhalla, Deepak
Samota,
Siddharth Srivastava, Shubham Bhalla, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Ms. Sneha
Kalita, Ms. Manisha Ambwani, Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, Abhinav Mukerji,
Mrs. Bihu Sharma, Ms. Pratishtha Vij, Mukesh K. Giri, Naresh K.
Sharma, Shuvodeep Roy, Kabir Shankar Bose, Mukul Kumar, Ashok
Mathur, Kunal Chatterji, Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Pravar Veer Misra,
Vishnu Sharma, Ms. Mukti Chaudhry, K.V. Jagdishvaran, Ms. G. Indira,
Aniruddha P. Mayee, Sandeep Kumar Jha, Atul Jha, Ms. K. Enatoli
Sema, Amit Kumar Singh, Ms. Uttara Babbar, Manan Bansal, T.G.
Narayanan Nair, Sibo Sankar Mishra, Niranjan Sahu, U.K. Mishra, Ashok
Kumar Singh, Arjun Garg, Rati Tandon, Siddhesh Kotwal, Divyansh
Tiwari, Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Ms. Manya Hasija, Nirnimesh Dube, Gaurav
Agrawal, M/S. KSN & Co., P.I. Jose, Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Arvind
IN RE: TO ISSUE CERTAIN GUIDELINES REGARDING INADEQUACIES AND
DEFICIENCIES IN CRIMINAL TRIALS v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
102
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 4 S.C.R.
Kumar Tripathi, Ms. Shashi Pathak, Ms. Astha Sharma, Nikhil Goel,
Ms. Naveen Goel, Dushyant Sarna, Vinay Mathew, Anil Nag, Anmol
Nag, Arun Singh, Surjendu Sankar Das, Ms. Annie Mittal, Mahfooz A.
Nazki, Polanki Gowtham, Shaik Mohamad Haneef, T. Vijaya Bhaskar
Reddy, Amitabh Sinha, Shrey Sharma, Raghvendra Kumar, Anand Kumar
Dubey, Narendra Kumar, Sahil Tagotra, M. Yogesh Kanna, Raja
Rajeshwaran S., Aditya Chadha, Ms. Uma Prasuna Bachu, Ms. Jaspreet
Gogia, Karanvir Gogia, Ms. Shivangi Singhat, Sharan Thakur, Mahesh
Thakur, Siddhartha Thakur, Ms. Vipasha Singh, Himanshu Shekhar,
Jamnesh Kumar, V.G. Pragasam, S. Prabhu Ramasubramanian, Ms.
Rachna Srivastava, V.N. Raghupathy, Sameer Parekh, Kshatrashal Raj,
Ms. Tanya Chaudhry, Ms. Pratyusha Priyadarshini, Ms. Nitika Pandey,
M/S. Parekh & Co., Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, Mrs. Priyanka Prakash,
Mrs. Beena Prakash, G. Prakash, Abhishek Manchanda, Nikhil Parikshith
for PLR Chambers & Co., Tapesh Kumar Singh, Advs. for the appearing
parties.
The following order of the Court was passed:
ORDER
1. This suo motu proceeding under Article 32 was initiated during
the course of hearing of a criminal appeal1. 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 have not framed such rules. This has led to a lack of
clarity and uniformity in regard to the presentation of trial court
proceedings and records, for the purpose of appreciation at the High
Court level and eventually, before this court.
1 Crl.A.400/2006 & connected matters
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
103
3. By an elaborate order dated 30.03.2017, this Court noted various
salient aspects and flagged inadequacies in the practices and rules of
High Courts by taking a cue from existing rules in some High Courts2.
After noticing about 13 issues, the Court felt the desirability of a uniform
approach – in description of exhibits, manner and description of recording
of statements of witnesses, labeling of material objects, and so on. The
Court therefore, issued notice to the Registrar Generals of all High Courts,
Chief Secretaries and Administrators of States and Union Territories as
well as Advocates General, Additional Advocates Generals and Senior
Standing Counsel of all states and Union Territories. By a later order
dated 07.11.2017, the Court appointed Mr. Sidharth Luthra and Mr. R.
Basanth, Senior Advocates as amici curiae. On 20.02.2018, Mr. K.
Parameshwar, learned counsel was also appointed as amicus curiae to
assist the senior counsel who were earlier appointed as amici curiae.
All concerned State Governments and Union Territories as well as High
Courts through their Registrar Generals were called upon to submit their
responses along with suggestions.
4. By January 2019, 15 States/Union Territories and 21 High
Courts had filed responses before this court. Based upon these responses,
the amici curiae evolved a consultation paper, which inter alia contained
draft rules. The draft rules were circulated to all parties by a letter dated
18.02.2019. Written
responses were invited from stakeholders and a
colloquium was convened for this purpose in New Delhi at the India
International Centre, on 30.03.2019. The colloquium was attended by
representatives of different States/Union Territories and their respective
High Courts.
5. After considering the suggestions made during the colloquium,
the amici curiae submitted the “Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2020”
for the consideration of this court. While framing Draft Rules, due care
was taken to ensure uniformity and at the same time to recognize the
diverse 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
2 Kerala Criminal Rules of Practice, 1982; Andhra Pradesh Criminal Rules of Practices
and Circular Orders, 1990 etc.
IN RE: TO ISSUE CERTAIN GUIDELINES REGARDING INADEQUACIES AND
DEFICIENCIES IN CRIMINAL TRIALS v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
104
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 4 S.C.R.
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 the State Governments. Similarly,
the High Courts welcomed the uniform manner in which body sketches,
spot panchnamas etc. are to be brought on record (Draft Rules 1-4).
However, they state that the onus for the implementation of these Rules
is on the investigation agencies.
9. This court is of the opinion that a perusal of the responses
indicates that the High Courts have indicated their reservations to certain
draft rules. These are as follows:
(1)
translations of deposition [Draft Rule 6(i)(ii)] – High Court
of Madhya Pradesh, Kerala, Tamil Nadu.
(2)
references to accused/witnesses/material objects (Draft
Rule 9) – Allahabad, MP, Tripura, Kerala, Calcutta – The
High Courts have
suggested that along with the numbers
assigned to the witness, accused etc., names may also be
used to avoid confusion.
(3)
The rule requiring day to day trial (Rule 19(i)) – Madhya
Pradesh, Manipur, Tripura.
10. During the hearing of these proceedings, the court took into
consideration the viewpoints, on behalf of High Courts, where there
was either a divergence in the opinion about the practice to be adopted,
or some reservation.
11. The amici pointed out that at the commencement of trial,
accused are only furnished with list of documents and statements which
the prosecution relies on and are kept in the dark about other material,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
105
which the police or the prosecution may have in their possession, which
may be exculpatory in nature, or absolve or help the accused. This court
is of the opinion that while furnishing the list of statements, documents
and material objects under Sections 207/208, Cr. PC, the magistrate
should also ensure that a list of other materials, (such as statements, or
objects/documents seized, but not relied on) should be furnished to the
accused. This is to ensure that in case the accused is of the view that
such materials are necessary to be produced for a proper and just trial,
she or he may seek appropriate orders, under the Cr. PC.3 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 Gujarat4  with respect to objections
regarding questions to be put to witnesses. This court had termed the
practice of deciding the objections, immediately as “archaic” and
indicated what it felt was an appropriate course:
“It is an archaic practice that during the evidence collecting
stage, whenever any objection is raised regarding
admissibility of any material in evidence the court does not
proceed further without passing order on such objection. But
the fall out of the above practice is this: Suppose the
trial
court, in a case, upholds a particular objection and excludes
the material from being admitted in evidence and then proceeds
391. Summons to produce document or other thing.
(1) Whenever any Court or any officer in charge of a police station considers that the
production of any document or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of
any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proc eeding under this Code by or before such
Court or officer, such Court may issue a summons, or such officer a written order, 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 produc ed 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.
4 (2001) 3 SCC 1
IN RE: TO ISSUE CERTAIN GUIDELINES REGARDING INADEQUACIES AND
DEFICIENCIES IN CRIMINAL TRIALS v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
106
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 4 S.C.R.
with the trial and disposes of the case finally. If the appellate
or revisional court, when the same question is re-canvassed,
could take a different view on the admissibility of that material
in such cases the appellate court would be deprived of the
benefit of that evidence, because that was not put on record
by the trial court. In such a situation the higher court may
have to send the case back to the trial court for recording
that evidence and then to dispose of the case afresh. Why
should the trial prolong like that unnecessarily on account
of practices created by ourselves. Such practices, when
realised through the course of long period to be hindrances
which impede steady and swift progress of trial proceedings,
must be recast or re-moulded to give way for better substitutes
which would help acceleration of trial proceedings.
When so recast, the practice which can be a better substitute
is this: Whenever an objection is raised during evidence
taking stage regarding the admissibility of any material or
item of oral evidence the trial court can make a note of such
objection and mark the objected document tentatively as an
exhibit in the case (or record the objected part of the oral
evidence) subject to such objections to be decided at the last
stage in the final judgment. If the court finds at the final stage
that the objection so raised is sustainable the judge or
magistrate can keep such evidence excluded from
consideration. In our view there is no illegality in adopting
such a course. (However, we make it clear that if the objection
relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document the court
has to decide the objection before proceeding further. For
all other objections the procedure suggested above can be
followed.) The above procedure, if followed, will have two
advantages. 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
107
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 record, but even causes prejudice,
which is greatly multiplied when the appellate court has to decide the
issue. Frequently, given that trials are prolonged, the trial courts do not
decide upon these objections at the final stage, as neither counsel
addresses arguments. Therefore, it is submitted that the rule in Bipin
Shantilal Panchal (supra) requires reconsideration.
14. During a trial, in terms of Section 132, every witness is bound
to answer the questions she or he is asked; however, that is subject to
the caveat that he or she is entitled to claim silence, if the answers
incriminate him or her, by virtue of Article 20 (3) of the Constitution.
Every judge who presides over a criminal trial, has the authority and
duty to decide on the validity or relevance of questions asked of witnesses.
This is to be
found in Section 148 Cr. PC, which reads as follows:
“148. Court to decide when question shall be asked and when
witness compelled to answer. –– If any such question relates
to a matter not relevant to the suit or proceeding, except in so
far as it affects the credit of the witness by injuring his
character, the Court shall decide whether or not the witness
shall be compelled to answer it, and may, if it thinks fit, warn
the witness that he is not obliged to answer it.
In exercising its discretion, the Court shall have regard to the
following considerations: ––
(1) such questions are proper if they are of such a nature that
the truth of the imputation conveyed by them would seriously
affect the opinion of the Court as to the credibility of the
witness on the matter to which he testifies;
IN RE: TO ISSUE CERTAIN GUIDELINES REGARDING INADEQUACIES AND
DEFICIENCIES IN CRIMINAL TRIALS v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
108
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 4 S.C.R.
(2) such questions are improper if the imputation which they
convey relates to matters so remote in time, or of such a
character, that the truth of the imputation would not affect,
or would affect in a slight degree, the opinion of the Court as
to the credibility of the witness on the matter to which he
testifies;
(3) such questions are improper if there is a great disproportion
between the importance of the imputation made against the
witness’s character and the importance of his evidence;
(4) the Court may, if it sees fit, draw, from the witness’s refusal
to answer, the inference that the answer if given would be
unfavourable”
15. 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.
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 de-cluttering the record, and, what
is more, also have a salutary effect of preventing frivolous objections. In
given cases, if the court is of the opinion that repeated objections have
been taken, the remedy of costs, depending on the nature of obstruction,
and the proclivity of the line of questioning, may be resorted to.
Accordingly, the practice mandated in Bipin Shantilal Panchal shall
stand modified in the above terms.
16. Counsel appearing for the states and High Courts submitted
that the provision in the draft rules, requiring that trials should be conducted
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
109
on a day-to-day manner, cannot be complied with. It was argued that
courts have to, more often than not, postpone or adjourn cases due to
non-availability of witnesses, or on account of absence of defense counsel,
or the prosecutor. The learned amici submitted that given that trial begins
after charges have been framed, the prosecution witnesses should be
available on the dates of trial, for the simple reason that they are relied
on for proving the charges. It was submitted that this court should indicate
that as far as practicable, the trial court should carry out before hand,
sequencing of witness deposition, in terms of eyewitnesses, other material
witnesses, formal witnesses, expert witnesses etc., and also factor in
some specific date or dates, so that effective depositions are recorded
on every date of hearing so fixed.
17. 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,
and framing of charges, hold a preliminary case management hearing.
This hearing may take place immediately after the framing of the charge.
In this hearing, the court should consider the total number of witnesses,
and classify them as eyewitness, material witness, formal witness (who
would be asked to produce documents, etc) and experts. At that stage,
the court should consider whether the parties are in a position to admit
any document (including report of experts, or any document that
may be
produced by the accused, or relied on by her or him). If so, the exercise
of admission/denial may be carried out under Section 294, Cr. PC, for
which a specific date may be fixed. The schedule of recording of
witnesses should then be fixed, by giving consecutive dates. Each date
so fixed, should be scheduled for a specific number of witnesses.
However, the concerned witnesses may be bound 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
IN RE: TO ISSUE CERTAIN GUIDELINES REGARDING INADEQUACIES AND
DEFICIENCIES IN CRIMINAL TRIALS v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
110
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 4 S.C.R.
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, (which are annexed to the present order, and shall be
read as part of it) should be hereby finalized in terms of the above
discussion. The following directions are hereby issued:
(a)
All High Courts shall take expeditious steps to incorporate
the said Draft Rules, 2021 as part of the rules governing
criminal trials, and ensure that the existing rules,
notifications, orders and practice directions are suitably
modified, and promulgated (wherever necessary through
the Official Gazette) within 6 months from today. If the
state government’s co-operation is necessary in this regard,
the approval of the concerned department or departments,
and the formal notification of the said Draft Rules, shall be
made within the said period of six months.
(b)
The state governments, as well as the Union of India (in
relation to investigating agencies in its control) shall carry
out consequential amendments to their police and other
manuals, within six months from today. This direction applies,
specifically in
respect of Draft Rules 1-3. The appropriate
forms and guidelines shall be brought into force, and all
agencies instructed accordingly, within six months from
today.
20. The court hereby places its appreciation and gratitude to the
contributions and effort of the three amici Shri Siddharth Luthra, Shri R.
Basanth (Senior Advocates) and Shri K. Parameshwar, Advocate - they
gave valuable inputs and innumerable suggestions, considered all
suggestions given by various stakeholders, reported to the court and
made extremely useful submissions. The court also places on record its
appreciation of Shri A. Karthik, Ms. Mehak Jaggi and Shri M.V.
Mukunda, Advocate, who rendered valuable assistance to the amici.
21. The suo motu proceeding is disposed of in terms of the above
directions.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
111
DRAFT CRIMINAL RULES ON PRACTICE, 2021
CHAPTER I. INVESTIGATION
1.  BODY SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY MEDICO LEGAL
CERTIFICATE, POST MORTEM REPORT AND INQUEST
REPORT:
Every Medico Legal Certificate, Post Mortem Report shall contain
a printed format of the human body on its reverse and injuries, if any,
shall be indicated on such sketch.
Explanation: The printed format of the human body shall contain
both a frontal and rear view of the human body as provided in
ANNEXURE – A
2. PHOTOGRAPHS AND VIDEO GRAPHS OF POST
MORTEM IN CERTAIN CASES
i.
In case of death of a person in police action [under Section
46 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973(“Cr.PC”) or Sections
129 to 131 Cr.PC] or death while in police custody, the
magistrate or the Investigating Officer as the case may be,
shall inform the hospital or doctor in charge to arrange for
photographs or videography for conducting the post-mortem
examination of the deceased. The photographs of the
deceased shall also be arranged to be taken in all cases.
ii.
Such photograph and video graphs shall be taken either by
arranging a police photographer or a nominated photographer
of the State Government, and where neither of the above
are available, an independent or private photographer shall
be engaged.
iii.
Such photographs or video graphs shall be seized under a
panchnama or seizure memo and all steps taken to ensure
proper proof of such photographs/video graphs during Trial.
iv.
The Investigating Officer shall ensure that such
photographs
and videographs, if taken electronically, are seized under a
panchnama or seizure memo and steps are taken to
preserve the original, and ensure that certificate under
Section 65B Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is obtained and taken
to be proved during trial.
IN RE: TO ISSUE CERTAIN GUIDELINES REGARDING INADEQUACIES AND
DEFICIENCIES IN CRIMINAL TRIALS v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
112
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 4 S.C.R.
v.
The video or photographs shall be stored on a separate
memory card, accompanied by a duly certified certificate
under Section 65B Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
vi.
Where post-mortems are recorded in electronic form, the
file containing the post-mortem proceedings, duly certified,
should be placed with the memory card as an attachment
unless individual memory cards are not capable of being
produced before Court.
3. SCENE MAHAZAR/ SPOT PANCHANAMA
i.
A site plan of the place of occurrence of an incident shall
be appended by the Investigating Officer to the scene
mahazar or spot panchnama.
ii.
The site plan shall be prepared by the Investigating Officer
by hand, and shall disclose
a.
the place of occurrence,
b.
the place where the body (or bodies) was / were
found,
c.
the place where material exhibits and/or weapons,
d.
blood stains and/or body fluids had fallen,
e.
the place where bullet shells, if any, were found or
have caused impact,
f.
the source of light, if any and
g.
adjoining natural and man-made structures or features
such as walls, pits, fences, trees/bushes, if any and
h.
elevation of structures and their location.
iii.
The preparation of this sketch by the Investigating Officer
shall be followed by a scaled site plan prepared by police
draftsman, if available, or such other authorized or
nominated draftsman by the State Government, who shall
prepare the scaled site plan after visiting the spot.
iv.
The
relevant details in the mahazar or panchnama shall
be marked and correlated in the said site plan.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
113
4. SUPPLY OF DOCUMENTS UNDER SECTIONS 173,
207 AND 208 CR.PC
i.
Every Accused shall be supplied with statements of witness
recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.PC and a list of
documents, material objects and exhibits seized during
investigation and relied upon by the Investigating Officer
(I.O) in accordance with Sections 207 and 208, Cr. PC.
Explanation: The list of statements, documents, material
objects and exhibits shall specify statements, documents,
material objects and exhibits that are not relied upon by the
Investigating Officer.
CHAPTER II: CHARGE
5. The order framing charge shall be accompanied by a formal
charge in Form 32, Schedule II, Cr.P.C. to be prepared personally by the
Presiding Officer after complete and total application of mind.
CHAPTER III:TRIAL
6. RECORDING OF EVIDENCE: PROCEDURE
i.
The depositions of witnesses shall be recorded, in typed
format, if possible. The record of evidence shall be prepared
on computers, if available, in the Court on the dictation of
the Presiding Officer.
Provided that in case the language of deposition is to be
recorded in a language other than English or the language
of the State, the Presiding Officer shall simultaneously
translate the deposition either himself or through a
competent translator into English.
ii.
The deposition shall be recorded in the language of the
witness and in English when translated as provided in Clause
6 (i).
iii.
The depositions shall without exception be read over by the
Presiding officer in Court. Hard copy of the testimony so
recorded duly signed to be a true copy by the Presiding
Officer/court officer shall be made available free of cost
against receipt to the accused or an advocate representing
IN RE: TO ISSUE CERTAIN GUIDELINES REGARDING INADEQUACIES AND
DEFICIENCIES IN CRIMINAL TRIALS v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
114
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 4 S.C.R.
the accused, to the witness and the prosecutor on the date
of recording.
iv.
A translator shall be made available in each Court and
Presiding Officers shall be trained in the local languages,
on the request of the Presiding Officer.
v.
The Presiding Officers shall not record evidence in more
than one case at the same time.
7. RECORDING OF EVIDENCE: FORMAT OF
WITNESSES
i.
The deposition of each witness shall be recorded dividing it
into separate paragraphs assigning paragraph numbers.
ii.
Prosecution witnesses shall be numbered as PW-1, PW-2
etc, in seriatim. Similarly, defence witnesses shall be
numbered as DW-1, DW-2, etc., in seriatim. The Court
witnesses shall be numbered as CW-1, CW-2, etc, in
seriatim.
iii.
The record of depositions shall indicate the date of the chief
examination, the cross examination and re-examination.
iv.
The Presiding Officers shall wherever necessary record the
deposition in question and answer format.
v.
Objections by either the prosecution or the defence counsel
shall be taken note of and reflected in the evidence and
decided immediately, in accordance with law, or, at the
discretion of the learned Judge, at the end of the deposition
of the witness in question.
vi.
The name and number of the witness shall be clearly stated
on any subsequent date, if the evidence is not concluded on
the date on which it begins.
8. EXHIBITING OF MATERIAL OBJECTS AND
EVIDENCE
i.
Prosecution exhibits shall
be marked as Exhibit P-1, P-2
etc in seriatim. Similarly, defence Exhibits shall be marked
as Exhibit D-1, D-2, etc in seriatim. The Court exhibit shall
be marked as Exhibit C-1, C-2, etc in seriatim.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
115
ii.
To easily locate the witness through whom the document
was first introduced in evidence, the exhibit number shall
further show the witness number of such witness after the
Exhibit number. If an exhibit is marked without proper proof,
the same shall be indicated by showing in brackets (subject
to proof).
Explanation: If Prosecution witness no. 1 (PW1) introduces
a document in evidence, that document shall be marked as
Exhibit P-1/PW1. If proper proof is not offered for that
document at the time when it is marked, it shall be marked
as Exhibit P-1/PW1 (subject to proof). The Second
document introduced by PW1 will be Exhibit P-2/PW1.
iii.
The Material objects shall be marked in seriatim as MO-1,
MO-2 etc.
9. SUBSEQUENT REFERENCES TO ACCUSED,
WITNESS, EXHIBITS AND MATERIAL OBJECTS
i.
After framing of charges, the accused shall be referred to
only by their ranks in the array of accused in the charge
and not by their names or other references except at the
stage of identification by the witness.
ii.
After recording the deposition of witnesses, marking of the
exhibits and material objects, while recording deposition of
other witnesses, the witnesses, exhibits and material objects
shall be referred by their numbers and not by names or
other references.
iii.
Where witness cited in the complaint or police report are
not examined, they shall be referred to by their names and
the numbers allotted to them in the complaint or police report.
10. REFERENCES TO
STATEMENTS UNDER SECTION
161 AND 164 CRPC:
i.
During cross examination, the relevant portion of the
statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC used for
contradicting the respective witness shall be extracted. If it
is not possible to extract the relevant part as aforesaid, the
Presiding Officer, in his discretion, shall indicate specifically
IN RE: TO ISSUE CERTAIN GUIDELINES REGARDING INADEQUACIES AND
DEFICIENCIES IN CRIMINAL TRIALS v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
116
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 4 S.C.R.
the opening and closing words of such relevant portion, while
recording the deposition, through distinct marking.
ii.
In such cases, where the relevant portion is not extracted,
the portions only shall be distinctly marked as prosecution
or defence exhibit as the case may be, so that other
inadmissible portions of the evidence are not part of the
record.
iii.
In cases, where the relevant portion is not extracted, the
admissible portion shall be distinctly marked as prosecution
or defence exhibit as the case may be.
iv.
The aforesaid rule applicable to recording of the statements
under Section 161 shall mutatis mutandis apply to
statements recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.PC,
whenever such portions of prior statements of living persons
are used for contradiction/corroboration.
v.
Omnibus marking of the entire statement under S. 161 and
164 Cr.P.C shall not be done.
11. MARKING OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS
The Presiding Officers shall ensure that only admissible portion
of Section 8 or Section 27 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is marked and
such portion alone is extracted on a separate sheet and marked and
given an exhibit number.
CHAPTER IV: THE JUDGMENT
12. Every judgement shall contain the following
i.
Start with a preface showing the names of parties as per
FORM A to the Rules.
ii.
A tabular statement as per FORM B to the Rules.
iii.
An appendix giving the list of prosecution witnesses,
defence witnesses, Court
witnesses, Prosecution Exhibits,
Defence Exhibits and Court Exhibits and Material Objects
as per FORM C to the Rules.
13. In compliance with Section 354 and 355 Cr.PC, in all cases,
the judgments shall contain:
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
117
i.
the point or points for determination,
ii.
the decision thereon, and
iii.
the reasons for the decision
14. In case of conviction, the judgment shall separately indicate
the offence involved and the sentence awarded. In case there are multiple
accused, each of them shall be dealt with separately. In case of acquittal
and if the accused is in confinement, a direction shall be given to set the
accused at liberty, unless such accused is in custody in any other case.
15. In the judgment the accused, witnesses, exhibits and material
objects shall be referred to by their nomenclature or number and not
only by their names or otherwise. Wherever, there is a need to refer to
the accused or witnesses by their name, the number shall be indicated
within brackets.
16. The judgment shall be written in paragraphs and each
paragraph shall be numbered in seriatim. The Presiding Officers, may,
in their discretion, organize the judgment into different sections.
CHAPTER V: MISCELLANEOUS
17. BAIL
i.
The application for bail in non-bailable cases must ordinarily
be disposed off within a period of 3 to 7 days from the date
of first hearing. If the application is not disposed off within
such period, the Presiding Officer shall furnish reasons
thereof in the order itself. Copy of the order and the reply
to the bail application or status report (by the police or
prosecution) if any, shall be furnished to the accused and to
the accused on the date of pronouncement of the order
itself.
ii.
The Presiding Officer may, in an appropriate case in its
discretion insist on a statement to be filed by the prosecutor
in charge of the case.
18. 
SEPARATION 
OF 
PROSECUTORS 
AND
INVESTIGATORS
The State Governments shall appoint advocates, other than Public
Prosecutors, to advise the Investigating Officer during investigation.
IN RE: TO ISSUE CERTAIN GUIDELINES REGARDING INADEQUACIES AND
DEFICIENCIES IN CRIMINAL TRIALS v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
118
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 4 S.C.R.
19. DIRECTIONS FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL
i.
In every enquiry or trial, the proceedings shall be held as
expeditiously as possible, and, in particular, when the
examination of witnesses has once begun, the same shall
be continued from day to day until all the witnesses in
attendance have been examined, unless the court finds the
adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be
necessary for reasons to be recorded. (section 309 (1)
Cr.PC.). For this purpose, at the commencement, and
immediately after framing charge, the court shall hold a
scheduling hearing, to ascertain and fix consecutive dates
for recording of evidence, regard being had to whether the
witnesses are material, or eyewitnesses, or formal witnesses
or are experts. The court then shall draw up a schedule
indicating the consecutive dates, when witnesses would be
examined; it is open to schedule recording of a set of
witness’ depositions on one date, and on the next date, other
sets, and so on. The court shall also, before commencement
of trial, ascertain if the parties wish to carry out admission
of any document under Section 294, and permit them to do
so, after which such consecutive dates for trial shall be
fixed.
ii.
After the commencement of the trial, if the court finds it
necessary or advisable to postpone the commencement of,
or adjourn, any inquiry or trial, it may, from time to time, for
reasons to be recorded postpone or adjourn the same on
such terms as it thinks fit, for such time as it considers
reasonable. If witnesses are in attendance no adjournment
or postponement shall be granted, without examining them,
except for special reasons to be recorded, in writing.
(Section 309 (2) Cr.PC.).
iii.
Sessions cases may be given precedence over all other work
and no other work should be taken up on sessions days
until the sessions work for the day is completed. A Sessions
case once posted should not be postponed unless that is
unavoidable, and once the trial has begun, it should proceed

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
119
continuously from day today till it is completed. If for any
reason, a case has to be adjourned or postponed, intimation
should be given forthwith to both sides and immediate steps
be taken to stop the witnesses and secure their presence
on the adjourned date.
Form A
Form B
Accused Details:
IN RE: TO ISSUE CERTAIN GUIDELINES REGARDING INADEQUACIES AND
DEFICIENCIES IN CRIMINAL TRIALS v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
120
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 4 S.C.R.
FORM C
LIST OF  PROSECUTION / DEFENCE / COURTWITNESSES
A. Prosecution
B. Defence Witnesses, if any;
C. Court Witnesses, if any;
LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT EXHIBITS
A. Prosecution:
B. Defence

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
121
C. Court Exhibits
D. Material Objects:
IN RE: TO ISSUE CERTAIN GUIDELINES REGARDING INADEQUACIES AND
DEFICIENCIES IN CRIMINAL TRIALS v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Nidhi Jain
Proceedings disposed of.