The court ordered all investigating agencies to take drafted amendments to the police manuals within 6 months: Supreme Court of India.

 IN THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION SUO MOTO WRITNO.(S) 1 2017 IN RE: TO ISSUE CERTAIN GUIDELINES REGARDING INADEQUACIES AND DEFICIENCIES IN CRIMINAL TRIALS THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS 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 documentsreferred 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. 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 1Crl.A.400 2006 & connected matters presentation of trial court proceedings and records for the purpose of appreciation at the High Court level and eventually before this court 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 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 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 2Kerala Criminal Rules of Practice 1982 Andhra Pradesh Criminal Rules of Practices and Circular Orders 1990 etc 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 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 Rules of Criminal Practice 2020 Pursuant to that order all High Courts filed their responses and the summaries of the 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 The High Courts unanimously welcomed the suggestion of separating the prosecution from the investigation 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 recordtranslations of deposition High Court of Madhya Pradesh Kerala Tamil Nadu 2) references to accused witnesses material objectsAllahabad MP Tripura Kerala Calcutta The High Courts have suggested that along with the numbers assigned to the witness accused etc. names may also be 3) The rule requiring day to day trialMadhya Pradesh Manipur used to avoid confusion 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. 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 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 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.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 proceeding 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 produced 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 1872or the Bankers Books Evidence c)to apply to a letter postcard telegram or other document or any parcel or thing in the custody of the postal or Act 1891or 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 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 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 caseThe 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 4(2001) 3 SCC 1 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 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.” 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 Panchalsuch 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 Panchalrequires 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 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 Actwhich 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 whatmore 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 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 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 and experts. At that stage the court should consider whether the parties are in a position to admit any documentBody sketch to accompany medico legal certificate post mortem report and inquest report(2) Photographs and Video graphs of post mortem in certain casesandScene Mahazar Spot Panchanamawould be taken at the earliest. 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 promulgatedwithin 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 Indiashall 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. The court hereby places its appreciation and gratitude to the contributions and effort of the three amici Shri Siddharth Luthra Shri R. Basanthand 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. The suo motu proceeding is disposed of in terms of the above directions. 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 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 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 the place of occurrence b. the place where the bodywas were found the place where material exhibits and or weapons d. blood stains and or body fluids had fallen the place where bullet shells if any were found or have caused impact 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 4. SUPPLY OF DOCUMENTS UNDER SECTIONS 173 207 AND 208 CR.PC 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 Officerin 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: 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 6. RECORDING OF EVIDENCE: PROCEDURE 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. The deposition shall be recorded in the language of the witness and in English when translated as provided in Clause 6introduces 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 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 19.DIRECTIONS FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL 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 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. Cr.PC 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 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 IN THE COURT OF Present: …. Sessions Judge Date of the Judgement Details of FIR Crime and Police Station NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT NAME OF THE ADVOCATE 1. NAME WITH ALL PARTICULARS (A1 2. NAME WITH ALL PARTICULARS (A2 NAME OF THE ADVOCATES Date of Offence Date of FIR Date of Chargesheet Date of Framing of Charges Date of commencement of Date on which judgment is Date of the Judgment Date of the Sentencing Order if Accused Details d Period of for purpose of 428 Cr.PC LIST OF PROSECUTION DEFENCE COURT WITNESSES NATURE OF EVIDENCE EYE WITNESS POLICE WITNESS EXPERT WITNESS MEDICAL WITNESS PANCH WITNESS OTHER WITNESS B. Defence Witnesses if any NATURE OF EVIDENCE EYE WITNESS POLICE WITNESS EXPERT WITNESS MEDICAL WITNESS PANCH WITNESS OTHER WITNESS C. Court Witnesses if any NATURE OF EVIDENCE EYE WITNESS POLICE WITNESS EXPERT WITNESS MEDICAL WITNESS PANCH WITNESS OTHER WITNESS LIST OF PROSECUTION DEFENCE COURT EXHIBITS Exhibit P 1 PW1 Exhibit P 2 PW2 Exhibit D 1 DW1 Exhibit D 2 DW2 C. Court Exhibits Exhibit C 1 CW1 Exhibit C 2 CW2 D. Material Objects Object

Summary: The High Court, state governments, as well as the Union of India (in relation to investigating agencies in its control) would take drafted consequential amendments to their police and other manuals, within six months from the order. This honorable judgement was passed by Supreme Court of India in the case of In Re: To Issue Certain Guidlines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies in Criminal Trial Vs. The State of ANDHRA Pradesh &amp; Ors. [SUO MOTO WRIT (CRL) NO.(S) 1/2017] by The Hon’ble Chief Justice. This suo motu proceeding under Article 32 was initiated during the course of hearing of a criminal appeal. The Court noticed common deficiencies which occurred 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, to the manner in which documents (i.e., list of witnesses, list of exhibits, list of material objects) referred to were 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, labelling of material objects, etc. These very often lead to asymmetries and hamper appreciation of evidence, which in turn had a tendency of prolonging proceedings, especially at the appellate stages. The Court had noticed that on these prominent aspects, rules appeared to had been formulated by certain High Courts, whereas many other High Courts had not framed such rules. This had 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. By an elaborated 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 Courts. After noticing about 13 issues, the Court felt the desirability of a uniform approach.   The court opinioned that, “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 that suitable steps to incorporate the Draft Rules – relating to Body sketch to accompany medico-legal certificate, post-mortem report and inquest report, Photographs and Video graphs of post mortem in certain cases and Scene Mahazar/ Spot Panchanama would be taken at the earliest.”