SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(SC) 239

S. A. BOBDE, L. NAGESWARA RAO, S. RAVINDRA BHAT
IN RE: TO ISSUE CERTAIN GUIDELINES REGARDING INADEQUACIES AND DEFICIENCIES IN CRIMINAL TRIALS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the parties :Sidharth Luthra,Sr. Adv. (AC) R. Basant, Sr. Adv.(AC) K. Parameshwar, (AC) M.V. Mukunda, A. Karthik, Mehaak Jaggi, Vishnu, A. Sregurupriya, Anandh Kannan N., K.M.Nataraj, LD ASG Vikramjit Banarjee, LD ASG R Balasubramanian , Sr. Adv. Pranay Ranjan , Anmol Chandan, Sachin sharma, Neela Gokhale, B.V. Balaram Das,AOR Raj Bahadur Yadav, K M Natarajan, Ld. ASG Vikramjeet Banerjee, Ld. ASG R Bala, Sr. Adv Pranay Ranjan, Sachin Sharma, Anmol Chandan, B V Balram Das (AOR) Sachin Patil,AOR Rahul Chitnis, Aaditya A. Pande, Geo Joseph, A.D.N. Rao, Guntur Prabhakar, Abhimanyu Tewari, Eliza Bar, Subodh S. Patil, Supriya Patil, Shekhar Raj Sharma, Sanjay Kumar Visen,AOR V. Balachandran, Siddharth Naidu, Abha R. Sharma, Keshav Mohan, R.K. Awasthi, Prashant Kumar, Piyush Vatsa, Ritu Arora, Santosh Kumar - I, P. S. Sudheer, Hemantika Wahi, M. Shoeb Alam, D.S. Parmar,AAG Sunny Choudhary, Rovins F. Verma,Adv Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Anupama Ngangom, Karun Sharma, Avijit Mani Tripathi, Shaurya Sahay, P.S. Negi, Aruna Mathur,AOR Avneesh Arputham, M/S. Arputham Aruna And Co, Saurabh Mishra, AAG Gopal Jha, Shreyash Bhardwaj, Shashi Juneja, Satish Pandey, Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, Garima Prashad, Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, Yajur Bhalla, Deepak Samota, Siddharth Srivastava, Shubham Bhalla, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Sneha Kalita, Bristi Rekha Mahanta, Manisha Ambwani, Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, Abhinav Mukerji, Mrs. Bihu Sharma, Pratishtha Vij, Mukesh K. Giri, Naresh K. Sharma, Shuvodeep Roy, Kabir Shankar Bose, Mukul Kumar, Ashok Mathur, Kunal Chatterji, Maitrayee Banerjee, Pravar Veer Misra, Vishnu Sharma, Mukti Chaudhry, K.V. Jagdishvaran, G. Indira, Aniruddha P. Mayee, Dr. Manish Singhvi,Sr.Adv. Sandeep Kumar Jha, Atul Jha, Sandeep Kumar Jha, K. Enatoli Sema, Amit Kumar Singh, Apratim Animesh Thakur, Prachi Hasija, Uttara Babbar, Manan Bansal, Shweta Mohta, Advocate. P.N. Ravindran, Sr. Adv. T.G. Narayanan Nair, Sibo Sankar Mishra, Niranjan Sahu, U.K. Mishra, Ashok Kumar Singh, Arjun Garg, Rati Tandon, Siddhesh Kotwal, Bansuri Swaraj, Divyansh Tiwari, Ana Upadhyay, Manya Hasija, Nirnimesh Dube, Gaurav Agrawal, M/S. KSN & Co., P. I. Jose, Soumya Chakraborty,Sr.Adv. Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Shashi Pathak, Astha Sharma, Nikhil Goel, Naveen Goel, Dushyant Sarna, Vinay Mathew, Anil Nag, Anmol Nag, Arun Singh, Surjendu Sankar Das, Annie Mittal,Adv 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, Uma Prasuna Bachu, Jaspreet Gogia, Mandakini Singh, Karanvir Gogia, Shivangi Singhat, Ashima Mandla, Sharan Thakur, Mahesh Thakur, Siddhartha Thakur, Vipasha Singh,Adv Himanshu Shekhar, Jamnesh Kumar, V.G. Pragasam, S. Prabhu Ramasubramanian, Rachana Srivastava Adv. V.N. Raghupathy, P.H. Parekh, Sr. Adv. Sameer Parekh, Kshatrashal Raj, Tanya Chaudhry, Pratyusha Priyadarshini, Nitika Pandey, M/S. Parekh & Co., Preetika Dwivedi, Jishnu M.L., Priyanka Prakash, Beena Prakash, G. Prakash, Suhaan Mukerji, Adv Vishal Prasad, Nikhil Parikshith, Abhishek Manchanda, Sayandeep Pahari, Adv For PLR Chambers &Co. Tapesh Kumar Singh, Advocates

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the legal document:

  • The Supreme Court emphasized that every judge presiding over a criminal trial has the authority and duty to decide on the validity or relevance of questions asked of witnesses (!) .
  • All criminal trials should begin with a preliminary case management hearing immediately after framing charges, to consider the total number of witnesses, classify them, and decide on admissibility of documents (!) (!) .
  • Courts should consider whether parties can admit any documents at the preliminary stage, with exercise of admission/denial under specific procedural provisions (!) .
  • The schedule for recording witnesses should be fixed with consecutive dates, and witnesses may be bound down for multiple days if necessary; fixed dates should accommodate non-appearance or inability to examine witnesses (!) (!) .
  • The practice of recording depositions should follow a structured format, with witnesses numbered systematically (PW-1, PW-2, etc.), and depositions divided into paragraphs with clear attribution of date and examination type (!) (!) (!) .
  • Exhibits should be marked systematically (Exhibit P-1, P-2, etc. for prosecution; D-1, D-2, etc. for defense; C-1, C-2, etc. for court), with clear indication of the witness through whom the exhibit was introduced (!) (!) .
  • Material objects shall be marked sequentially (MO-1, MO-2, etc.) (!) .
  • After framing charges, references to accused, witnesses, exhibits, and material objects should be by their assigned numbers rather than names, except during identification or if witnesses are not examined (!) (!) .
  • Statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. should be marked by extracting relevant portions, with clear marking to prevent inadmissible parts from entering the record (!) (!) (!) .
  • Only admissible portions of confessional statements should be marked and properly extracted for evidence (!) .
  • Every judgment must contain a preface with party names, a tabular statement, and an appendix listing witnesses and exhibits, along with reasons for decisions, and details of the offense and sentence if applicable (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
  • In judgments, references to parties, witnesses, exhibits, and objects should be by their assigned numbers or nomenclature, not solely by names, with numbers in brackets for identification (!) .
  • Judgments should be organized into numbered paragraphs, possibly divided into sections, to ensure clarity (!) .
  • The process for bail applications in non-bailable cases should be expedited, with reasons for delays provided if they occur (!) .
  • The separation of prosecutors from investigators is mandated, with advocates appointed to advise during investigation (!) (!) .
  • Trial proceedings should be conducted expeditiously, with a schedule of consecutive dates fixed after a preliminary hearing, and cases should be prioritized to avoid unnecessary postponements (!) (!) (!) .
  • The trial process should include a formal, detailed record of the investigation, including body sketches, photographs, videos, and scene mahazars, with specific procedures for their preparation and preservation (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
  • The supply of documents to the accused should include statements, lists of exhibits, and material objects, with clear identification of those relied upon and not relied upon by the prosecution (!) .
  • The recording of evidence should be in a typed format, with simultaneous translation where necessary, and depositions should be read over in court with copies provided to parties (!) (!) .
  • Witness depositions should be systematically numbered, with clear indication of the examination stages (!) .
  • Exhibits should be systematically marked and referenced with their associated witnesses (!) (!) .
  • After framing charges, references to witnesses and exhibits should be by their assigned numbers, and references to statements under Sections 161 and 164 should be carefully marked to avoid inadmissible material (!) (!) (!) .
  • Judgment writing should follow a structured format, including points for determination, reasons, and separate treatment of each accused if multiple are involved (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
  • The rules aim to streamline and standardize procedures to reduce delays, improve clarity, and ensure fair trial practices across jurisdictions (!) (!) (!) .
  • The implementation of the draft rules requires expeditious action by high courts and state authorities, including amendments to existing manuals and notifications within six months (!) (!) .
  • The court appreciates the contributions of legal professionals and amici curiae for their valuable inputs in formulating these guidelines and rules (!) .

Please let me know if you need further elaboration or specific assistance.


ORDER :

1. This suo motu proceeding under Article 32 was initiated during the course of hearing of a criminal appeal1[Crl.A.400/2006 & connected matters]. 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 s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

None of the provided case references indicate that the primary precedent—*In Re: To Issue Certain Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies in Criminal Trials v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2021) 10 SCC 598]*—has been overruled or reversed. All cited instances show courts applying, endorsing, or relying upon these guidelines.

### Followed/Applied

The vast majority of the entries fall into this category. The case *In Re: To Issue Certain Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies in Criminal Trials v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2021) 10 SCC 598]* is ubiquitously cited by lower courts and High Courts as authoritative guidance for criminal trial procedures.

* **Reliance and Endorsement:** Cases such as S. P. Velumani VS Arappor Iyakkam - 2022 6 Supreme 38, Akhilesh Singh, son of Sri Chandragupt Singh VS State of Jharkhand - 2022 0 Supreme(Jhk) 650, Tarsem Kumar Son Of Sh. Puran Chand VS State Of Himachal Pradesh Through Principal Secretary Home - 2022 0 Supreme(HP) 294, and GOPAKUMAR S/O KARUTHAKUNJU VS STATE OF KERALA - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 846 explicitly state that courts have "relied upon" or "endorsed" these guidelines to determine procedural fairness, the furnishing of documents to the accused, and evidence handling.

* **Procedural Authority:** Entries SUBAIR vs STATE OF KERALA - 2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 30352, Amit Kumar son of Ram Kumar vs UT of Jammu and Kashmir Th. SHO Police Station - 2024 Supreme(Online)(HC) 620, and GOPAKUMAR vs STATE OF KERALA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 33270 demonstrate that the guidelines are being systematically implemented to ensure fair trials and correct practices regarding the marking of evidence and disclosure of materials.

* **Case References:** Rakesh Jain VS Central Bureau of Investigation - Crimes (2022), Rakesh Jain VS Central Bureau Of Investigation - 2022 0 Supreme(P&H) 843, Rakesh Jain VS Central Bureau Of Investigation - 2022 0 Supreme(P&H) 840, Varghese Kuruvila VS State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 901, and Shivamurthy Murugha Sharanaru S/O Late Gurumurthy VS State Of Karnataka - 2024 0 Supreme(Kar) 318 reinforce that the Supreme Court's guidelines serve as the binding standard for managing deficiencies in criminal trials.

### Distinguished/Considered

Some cases mention the guidelines alongside other specific facts or concurrent legal issues:

* Armin R. Panthaky VS Rohinton Panthaky - Bombay (2024): This entry refers to *State of Maharashtra Vs Dr. Praful B.*, where the court noted it is "neither necessary nor advisable to provide any uniform guidelines in this regard," distinguishing the suitability of uniform guidelines in that specific context compared to the broader applicability of the *In Re* guidelines.

* Syed Iftikhar Andrabi VS National Investigation Agency, Jammu - 2026 0 Supreme(SC) 548: This entry references the *In Re* guidelines but notes a specific procedural nuance, stating that "the issue of giving out-of-turn priority to certain cases should be best left to the courts concerned."

* S. P. Velumani VS Arappor Iyakkam - 2022 6 Supreme 38: The entry mentions, "In a turn of events, the State Government went back on their earlier stand to close the criminal case." This is a factual development regarding the specific litigation rather than a judicial treatment of the *In Re* precedent itself.

* P. Ponnusamy VS The State of Tamil Nadu - 2022 8 Supreme 39: This entry contains repetitive formatting ("Trials Guidelines... In Re: vs. ... Trials Guidelines... In Re: vs.") which hinders a clear understanding of the specific procedural posture, though the reference remains rooted in the *In Re* guidelines.

* Bipin Shantilal Panchal VS State Of Gujarat - 2001 2 Supreme 65: This entry articulates a procedure for marking objected documents without naming a specific case title. While it aligns with the standards mentioned in the *In Re* guidelines, it is unclear if it is being cited as a standalone rule or a summary of the *In Re* principles.

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top