A Legal Analysis on Murder - Under the Guidance of Ms. K Srivani, Addl. Public Prosecutor, Grade - 1

 Introduction: The Criminal Justice System in the ancient and the modern Era

In ancient India, Particularly as described in the Smritis and Arthashastra, the king was regarded as the guardian of Dharma (law), responsible for ensuring justice and maintaining order. The primary duty of the king was to enforce Dharma through the use of power and punish those who violated it, while also protecting the victims and promoting the welfare of the people. The King's Court served both as the highest appellate court and an original court for important matters. It was advised by the Chief Justice, Ministers, elders and representatives of various communities. Below the king’s court, the Chief Justice's court operated with a panel of judges and local courts in towns and districts were managed by royal officers. During Emperor Ashoka's reign, Mahamatras were appointed to supervise local judicial functioning. Justice in villages was accessible and localized through councils similar to modern day panchayats, composed of elected members. These councils handled minor civil and criminal cases, while more serious matters were escalated to central courts. Village headmen could impose fines and local justice committees played a significant role in maintaining order. 

The police system evolved before the Mauryan period and was formalized in Kautilya's Arthashastra. It consisted of two parts: Regular police and secret police. Regular police operated in three- tier structure with officers for rural and urban areas. While the secret police worked both as mobile and stationary agents. Investigations in cases of sudden death involved procedures similar to modern techniques. Spies, informants and appointed investigation officers assisted in crime detection and law enforcement. The Manu Smriti and Katyayana Smriti provided guidance for intelligence gathering and crime control. Prison systems also originated in the pre - Mauryan era. Jails were built with separate accommodations for men and women and were intended to keep prisoners engaged in productive labour. Dharmamahamatras were appointed to oversee human treatment and the release of deserving inmates. Jail administration is detailed in Arthashastra.

Criminal acts were considered offenses against the state, and the king was expected to act even without formal complaints. Informants were rewarded an investigation. Officers were tasked with gathering evidence. Certain public spaces like gambling houses and brothels were regularly surveyed to detect crime. The use of reformed criminals to detect wrongdoings is also prescribed punishments were central to maintaining order. 

As per the Smritis, punishments ranged from admonition and fines to corporal penalties including mutilation and public shaming. These punishments often reflected the social hierarchy, with conflicting views in the texts on whether higher or lower castes should be punished differently for the same offence.

This is compelled by law to testify promptly with penalties for delays, perjury or false testimony. The entire property of one who presented false witnesses could be confiscated. The justice system permitted re-examination mainly to ensure fairness.

 Public participation in crime prevention was emphasized. Citizens were penalised for failing to assist during crimes or disasters like fires, double punishment was prescribed for those who avoided helping a person in distress. The right to self-defence was acknowledged. Individuals could legally kill attackers or defend the vulnerable even if the aggressor was a upper caste individual like a Brahmana.

 Finally, misconduct by public officials, including police, jail, staff and judges was dealt with harshly. Corrupt or unjust judges could be banished. Overall, the roots of Indian criminal justice system were laid in the Vedic period and became more structured by the Mauryan era, as seen in the Arthashastra.

The criminal justice system in modern India is a comprehensive and interdependent structure consisting of three key components, the police, judiciary, and correctional institutions. It serves the vital function of upholding the rule of law, ensuring justice, deterring crime and facilitating the rehabilitation of offenders. 

Over the years, this system has evolved to meet the changing needs of the society, with recent reforms aiming to make justice delivery faster, fairer and more accessible particularly through the integration of technology and a victim centric approach. The police formed the frontline of the criminal justice system. They are the first responders when a crime is reported and are responsible for investigating offenses, collecting evidence and apprehending suspects. Their role also includes maintaining public order and preventing crimes. However, the effectiveness of the police often depends on the resources available and the level of training provided, especially in handling new age crimes that require technical knowledge and sensitivity towards victims. The judiciary comprises of a hierarchical system of courts, including subordinate courts such as district and sessions courts, high courts in each state, and the Supreme Court at the national level. These courts interpret laws, conduct trials, resolve disputes, and determine guilt or innocence based on the evidence presented. The Indian legal system follows an adversarial model where the prosecution and defence present their arguments before a neutral judge or bench. 

A cornerstone of this system is the presumption of innocence, meaning the accused is considered innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The courts also play a significant role in protecting fundamental rights and ensuring due process is followed throughout the legal proceedings. The correctional system encompasses other rehabilitation facilities. Its purpose goes beyond mere punishment. It seeks to reform and rehabilitate offenders so that they can be reintegrated into society as responsible citizens. This principle of reformation and rehabilitation is gaining increasing attention in the modern criminal justice philosophy, as harsh punishment alone has been proven ineffective in preventing repeated offences. Educational programs, vocational training and psychological counselling are being implemented in many correctional institutions, although availability and quality vary widely across the country In recent years, significant reforms have been introduced to modernize and improve the criminal justice system. 

The introduction of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which replaces the colonial era Indian Penal Code, marks a pivotal shift in legal philosophy and aims to make criminal laws more streamlined and victim friendly. Complimenting this, there is the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which replaces the outdated Code of Criminal Procedure. It emphasizes speedy trials, better investigation mechanisms and improved coordination between agencies. The Bharatiya Saksha Adhiniyam, replacing the Indian Evidence Act, addresses the growing relevance of digital evidence and enables the online filing of documents, helping courts to keep peace with technological advancements.

 One of the most noteworthy aspects of these reforms is the emphasis on technology. Virtual hearings, digitized case records, online FIR filing, and the use of video evidence are being promoted to enhance transparency, reduce delays and make justice delivery more efficient. These steps are particularly important in the context of India’s massive population and growing internet penetration.

 Despite these improvements, the criminal justice system faces persistent challenges. Chief among them is the pendency of cases. Millions of cases remain unresolved in various codes, causing prolonged legal battles and delayed justice for victims and the accused alike. Another major concern is the infrastructure deficit. Many courts lack proper facilities, technology and staff, particularly in rural and semi - urban areas. Coordination between different agencies like police, judiciary and correctional services also remains inconsistent, often leading to procedural lapses and inefficiencies.

 In conclusion, while India's criminal justice system has a strong legal foundation and has seen important reforms in recent times, it still requires systematic improvements to ensure timely, fair, and effective justice for all. Continued investment in infrastructure, training, technology and interagency coordination is essential for transforming the criminal justice system into a truly people centric and efficient mechanism.

Who is a Public Prosecutor
A public prosecutor is a legal professional appointed by the government to represent the state in criminal proceedings. They are responsible for presenting evidence and arguments to the court to prove the guilt of an accused person, acting on behalf of the public interest. Public prosecutors play a crucial role in the criminal justice system by ensuring that the law has been applied fairly and that those who violate it are held accountable. They are typically appointed by the government, either central or state, and may be assigned to specific courts or districts. The main duties of a public prosecutor are:

-       Conducting prosecutions in court.

-       Appearing in appeals and other related legal proceedings.

-       Advising the police and other government departments and prosecution matters.

-       Working to ensure a fair and efficient administration of justice.

The concept of public prosecutors is given in Section 18 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita where, 

For every High Court, the Central Government or State Government shall, after consultation with the High Court, appoint a public prosecutor and may also appoint one or more additional public prosecutors for conducting in such court any prosecution, appeal or other proceeding on behalf of the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be. The district magistrate shall, in consultation with the sessions Judge, prepare a panel of name of persons who are, in his opinion, fit to be appointed as public prosecutors or additional public prosecutors for the District. No person shall be appointed by the state government as the public prosecutor or additional public prosecutor for the district unless his name appears in the panel of names prepared by the district magistrate.

 The central government or the state government may appoint, for the purposes of any case or class of cases, a person who has been in practice as an advocate for not less than 10 years as a special public prosecutor. Provided that the court may permit the victim to engage in advocate of his choice to assist the prosecution.

The role of a Public Prosecutor
General Role:

 A public prosecutor represents the state in criminal cases, acting as an agent of justice rather than solely seeking convictions. Their role begins after the police investigation is complete and a charge sheet is filed. They are responsible for presenting evidence and arguments to prove the guilt of the accused, ensuring a fair trial and just outcome.

Role During Police Investigation: 

Public prosecutors during police investigation offer legal advice to police on various aspects of investigation, such as the legality of search warrants, evidence gathering and the rights of suspects. Further, they assess the evidence connected by the police to determine if they have sufficient basis to proceed with the criminal case. A public prosecutor further decides whether to formally charge the suspect and initiate the prosecution. They further appear in court to obtain arrest warrants, search warrants or other warrants or orders required for the investigation. They initiate legal proceedings by filing charges and representing the state in court during the trial.

Role of Public Prosecutors at the time of trial:

After the accused is proven guilty, then the defence counsel and the public prosecutor further argue to decide the quantum of punishment. At this stage, the public prosecutor may argue for the adequate punishment, keeping in mind the facts, circumstances of case, and gravity of the offence. It helps the judge to arrive at a judicious decision. Right to speedy trial is a fundamental right and it is impliedly given under Article 21 of the Constitution of India which states right to life and personal liberty. The prosecutors have a responsibility to call all the witnesses whose evidence is essential to decide the case, to cross examine the witnesses and to see that no witness is left unexamined. To produce all the necessary documents. The Public Prosecutor has the sole authority to withdraw the case from prosecution, but the general practice is that they receive instructions from the government and following these instructions he/she can withdraw the case. 

 

The various grounds of withdrawal are: 

- Lack of Evidence
- In greater public Interest
- Falsely implicated in a case, due to personal or political agenda. 

In the case of State of U.P vs 3^rd Addl. Metropolitan Session Judge, the public prosecutor ought to withdraw, arguing that the accused was forced into such crimes due to various atrocities committed upon her by the higher caste people. The court declined by stating that there is no service to public interest in the withdrawal of the case, and rather such withdrawal might lead to wars. 

The Concept of Murder 

‘Murder’ in criminal law, is the killing of one person by another that is not legally justified or excusable. Usually distinguished from the crime of manslaughter by the element of malice aforethought.
The term ‘homicide’ is a general term used to describe the killing of one human being by another. A murder is considered a homicide, but homicide can also refer to a killing deemed justifiable or excusable. All legal systems make important distinctions between types of homicide and punishment, and they vary substantially according to the killer's intent, the circumstances of the homicide, and other factors.

 Most societies consider murder to be an extremely serious crime and thus believe that a person convicted of murder should receive harsh punishments for the purposes of retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, or incapacitation. In most countries, a person convicted of murder generally receives a long term prison sentence, a life sentence, or capital punishment. Some countries, States and territories, including the United Kingdom and other countries with English direct common law, mandate life imprisonment for murder, which it is subdivided into first degree murder or otherwise.

 The 18th century English jurist William Blackstone, in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, set out the common law definition of murder, which by this definition occurs as,

-       “When a person of sound memory and discretion unlawfully killed any reasonable creature in being and under the King's peace with malice, a forethought either expressed or implied.”

Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 101 The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita defines murder.

Except in the cases here and after, accepted culpable homicide is murder.

 a) If the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or;

b) If the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or;

c) If the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person, and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or;

d) If the person committing the act by which the death is caused knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death on such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.

Illustrations:

1. A shoots Z with the intention of killing him. Z dies in the consequence. He commits murder.

2. A knowing that Z is labouring under such a disease that a blow is likely to cause death, strikes him with the intention of causing bodily injury. Z dies in the consequence of the blow. A is guilty of murder, although the blow might not have been sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of a person in a sound state of health, but if A not knowing that Z is neighbouring under any disease, gives him such a blow as would not in the ordinary course of nature kill a person in a sound state of health. Here A, although he may intend to cause bodily injury, is not guilty of murder if he did not intend to cause death, or such bodily injury as in the ordinary course of nature would cause death.

3. A intentionally gives Z a sword cut or club wound sufficient to cause death of a man in the ordinary course of nature. Z dies in the consequence. Here, A is guilty of murder, although he may not have intended to cause Z's death.

Ingredients of murder:

 The ingredients or the essential elements to cause death, that are important to impose the liability or accusation of a murder are:

1)    Causing Death: The act committed by any person must lead to the death of the person upon whom the act has been committed, which is the first element to raise the accusation of murder. 

2)    Caused by the act of any other person: The act should be caused by another person secretly with all intention to kill the person upon who he is inflicting the crime, which is important to establish the liability of murder. 

3)    Actus Reus and Mens Rea: The act committed should be in full conscious and with complete mental intention to commit the crime. Inflicting injuries with actus reus and mens rea which is likely to cause death of a person can raise the accusation of murder upon the person.

Mens Rea in Murder:

 Mens Rea is Latin term meaning ‘Guilty Mind.’ It is a mental element of crime, which establishes the defendants state of mind while committing the offence. In the case of murder, the accused must have required an amount of talent and knowledge to commit the crime. The various elements of mens rea specifically in relation to murder are: 

1)    Intention to cause bodily injury/harm: The intention to cause injury/harm/grievous injury which is likely to cause death of a person, due to the intensity in inflicting the harm or any other medical condition of the deceased, known by the accused, which can easily cause death, definitely establishes the mens rea for murder.

2)    Knowledge that the act can cause death: If a person in his full conscious knows that the act of causing hurt can further lead to death, then mens rea can be established

There are various levels of mens rea:

1) Specific Intent: Where a person wanted to specifically cause death to another person. 

2) General Intent: The accused intended to commit some act upon another person, which may or may not lead to death.

 3) Recklessness: The accused was aware of the risks, but did not heed to them, which can be likely to cause the death of another person.

 4) Negligence: When a person, even though does not have the intention of causing death, does anything without taking due care and diligence, which is likely to cause death, that person is said to have acted negligently.

Four steps in the commission of a crime:

 Understanding the different stages of an offence in IPC or BNS is crucial in the Indian legal system to establish the culpability of an accused person and determine the appropriate legal consequences for their action. From the initial intention to preparation, attempt and Commission of the offences, each stage has its own distinct characteristics and legal provisions. It is important for law enforcement agencies, judicial bodies and legal professionals to carefully consider and analyse each stage of crime while investigating, prosecuting and adjudicating criminal cases.

 The stages of crime provide a framework for assessing the culpability of the accused and determining appropriate charges and punishments. The intention and preparation stages involve mental elements such as intent and planning, which may be established through circumstantial evidence, witness testimonies, or relevant evidence.

There are four steps in the commission of a murder or in fact any crime:

Motive/Intention: Intention is the first stage of crime where the accused person forms the mental state or mens rea to commit a particular offence. It involves a conscious decision or desire to commit the crime. In the entire legal system, criminal intent is considered the first stage in committing a crime. However, it is important to note that individuals are not punished for their evil thoughts or unlawful intentions under the law. 

Preparation: Preparation stage follows the intention stage and involves taking actions towards the execution of the intended offences. In this stage, the accused person makes arrangements, gathers resources and plans the details of the crime, but has not yet taken any concrete step towards its commission. When the offence is regarded as a serious offence, preparation to commit offence is penalized under the Indian Penal Code or the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Few of them are - warfare preparations against the government, preparing coins or government stamps for counterfeiting, having counterfeit money, fraudulent documents or fake weights and measurements, or making plans to commit dacoity etc. 

Attempt: The attempt stage follows the preparation stage and involves taking direct plan action towards the Commission of the intended offence. It is a stage where the accused person makes a physical or overt act towards the completion of the crime with the offences not fully consummated.

 Accomplishment: This stage is the final stage of the crime where the accused person successfully completes the offences by performing all the necessary acts to accomplish the intended crime. It is the stage where the mens rea and actus reus of the accused coincide, resulting in the consummation of the offences.

Degrees of murder:

 There are three degrees of murder:

First-Degree Murder	Second-Degree Murder	Third-Degree Murder
The first degree murder must be committed with some sort of intent to kill the person. The murderer must therefore have attacked or harmed the victim with the purpose of ending their life. Deliberation and remediation are essential parts of quantifying a first degree murder. This type of crime must be purposefully planned out rather than simply occurring in the heat of the moment. First degree murders often have some of the strongest punishments. The aggravating factors of a first degree murder is that the defendant has already committed one or more multiple murders in the past. The victim was a police officer, judge, witness, prosecutor or juror and the killing occurred in conjunction with another violent crime like rape. The death penalty may be a possible punishment for those who have Been convicted of the first degree murder.	Second degree murder is also a very serious crime, but as a step down in severity when compared to the first degree murder. In general terms, a second degree murder is one that doesn't have any kind of pre mediation and May have intended to cause harm rather than death. Generally, a second degree murder also involves an intent to kill or inflict serious bodily harm or be reckless or negligent in disregard for human life that creates a high probability of death or serious injury. Cases/ felonies like rape or robbery that result in death can be elevated to 1st degree murder even if there was no intent to kill. Second degree murders carries significant penalties, often including lengthy prison sentences. The specific penalties vary by jurisdiction, but they are generally less severe than those for the first degree murders.	A third degree murder, also known as depraved mind murder or felony murder in some states, is a criminal homicide that is neither first nor second degree murder and generally involves an unintentional killing resulting from reckless or negligent actions during the commission of certain felonies. It is a serious offence but less severe than the first and second degree murder as it lacks pre -mediation or intent to kill. Punishment in a third degree murder is less severe as compared to the 1st and 2nd degree murder, but it can lead to many years of imprisonment which vary by jurisdiction.

 
Punishment for Murder as per Section 302 of IPC and 103 of BNS:

As per Section 302 IPC

(1)  Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment of life, and also shall be liable for fine. 

As per the addition made in Section 103 BNS, 

(2)  When a group of five or more people acting in concert, commits murder on the grounds of race, caste or community, sex, place of birth, language, personal belief or any other similar ground, each member of such group shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. 

The doctrine of ‘Rarest of Rare,’ The evolvement of Capital Punishment for the purposes of this doctrine and relevant cases for the same:

There is no statutory definition of ‘Rarest Of Rare’. It depends upon facts and circumstances of a particular case, brutality of the crime, conduct of the offender, previous history of his or her involvement in crime, and chances of improving or combining him or her into the death penalty has always been a disputable issue all over the world. However, there cannot be any dispute as the fact that a global tendency is towards the abolition of extreme penalty, but Indian law still keeps on the capital punishment for a number of offences. The capital punishment in India is based on the doctrine of the rarest of the rare cases. This penalty is one of the harshest punishments that can be provided under IPC or BNS, which includes capital punishment(death sentence by hanging) to the accused for his wrongdoing. Here the question arises whether the state has right to take a life of a person. However, if he crosses any limit of burrussness, he shall be punished with death penalty taking into consideration the seriousness of the offence committed. Indian law does not have a consistent view of the death penalty, nor does it prohibit it outrightedly. The death penalty in India is limited to the rarest of the rare, in the previous cases such as Section 121, that is raising arms against the state, Section 302 murder, Section 364A kidnapping with ransom and so on. The code of punishment recommended for offences punishable with the death sentence.

 In 1980, in the case of Bachchan Singh vs. State of Punjab, the apex court proposed the rarest of rare doctrine and since then life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is the exception as in India it is awarded only in the gravest of cases. In the case of Machi Singh vs. State of Punjab, the court laid down certain criteria for assessing when a case could fall within the purview of rarest of rare. The criteria is: 

1)    Manner of committing murder: When murder is committed in an extremely cruel, ridiculous, diabolical, rebellious or reprehensible manner, so as to arouse intense and extreme outrage of the community. For example, when the victim's house is set on fire with the intention of baking her alive or when the victim is tortured for inhuman acts leading to her death, etc.

2)    Motive for murder: When a murder is intended to be a total depravity and cruelty. For example, a hired killer is killing just for the reward of money, a cold blooded murder involving a thoughtful design to gain control of property or some other selfish gains.

3)    Socially heinous nature of crime: When a person belonging to a backward class is murdered. Cases of burning the bride, popularly known as dowry death, are also included in this.

4)    The magnitude of the crime: When the proportion of crime is very high, for example in cases of multiple murders.

5)    Personality of the victim of the murder: When the victim of the murder is an innocent child, a helpless woman or person due to all danger, infirmity, public figure, etc.

 

The scope of the principle of Rarest of rare:

In the case of Jagmohan Singh vs. State of UP 1973, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty, holding that it is not merely a deterrent, but marks the rejection of the crime on the part of the society. The court also felt that Indians could not afford to experiment with abolishing the death penalty. Again, constitutionalism was upheld in the case of Bachchan Singh:

1)    'Life imprisonment is the rule and the death penalty is the exception

2)    There is a need to prepare a balance sheet of all the stimulating and mitigating conditions, and the mitigating conditions should be given full importance so that the balance can be struck between the two.

3)    Before opting for death penalty, the circumstances of the offence should be kept in mind.

Establishment of the doctrine:

The doctrine of the rarest of the rare was established in the landmark case of Bachchan Singh versus State of Punjab, 1980 where the constitutional breach raised question in regard to the constitutional validity of death penalty for murder under Section 302 of IPC.

 In the case of Kehar Singh vs. Delhi administration, the apex court affirmed capital punishment granted by the trial court and kept up by High Court to three appellants Kehar Singh, Balbir Singh and Sawant Singh for planning conspiracy and committing murder of Shrimati Indira Gandhi under Section 302, 120B r/w 34 and 109 of IPC. The court held that murder is one of the rarest of rare cases in which extraordinary punishment is sought for a professional murderer and planner.

Dimensions of the doctrine:

According to the Supreme Court, the crime must be viewed from different angles such as manner of committing the murder, the motive for the murder, the anti-social or socially abhorrent nature of the crime, and the horrors and personally of the victim of murder. Generally courts award life imprisonment to a convict in a murder case. Only in the rarest of rare cases, murder convicts are given the death penalty.

Procedures in Criminal Action and Trial

1. FIR/ Private Complaint: FIR: A FIR (First Information Report) is a report that is filed by the complainant in a police station after the commission of an offence. Any person can set the criminal law into motion. Therefore, a person filing an FIR can be anyone (not specifically a relative only) who has witnessed the incident or has complete knowledge of the commission of the offence and its facts. A FIR must be filed only within the local jurisdiction of the commission of the offence.

 Zero FIR: A zero FIR is when a report is filed in any police station irrespective of the jurisdiction of the commission of the offence. Private Complaint: If the police refuse to register an FIR, the complainant can file a private complaint directly in the court, in which he/she can submit a written and oral complaint to the magistrate directly, and request to take legal action. The magistrate takes cognizance of the offence and examines all the witnesses to the crime. 

The Format of an FIR:

 An FIR consists of 15 columns:

1.     District _______ Police Station______ FIR No. __________ Year _______

2.     Acts and Sections ___________

3.     Time Period: _________ Time From _______ Time To
Information received at the police station _______ Date_______
Time_____
General Diary Reference _______ Entry No(s). _______ Time _______

4.     Type of Information _______

5.     Place of occurrence:
a) Place, b) Street/ Village, c) Area/ Mandal, d) City/ District, e) State 
f) If outside the limits of the police station, then the district _______

6.     Complainant/ Informant:
a) Name, b) Father’s name/ Husband’s Name, c) Date or year of birth ___ Age___ Nationality _____, d) Passport No., e) Occupation, f) House No.
g) Street/Village , h) Area/ Mandal, i) City/ District, j) State, k) Mobile No.

 

7.     Details of the known/ unknown accused with full particulars 
Serial No. ______
Name and details of the accused and the particulars of the suspects and their various identifications

8.     Reasons for delay in the report by the complainant: Give the reason/ mention No Delay.

9.     Particulars of properties stolen/ Involved(If any):

10.  Total value of the properties stolen/ Involved:

11.  Inquest report/ U.D Case No. (If any):

12.  Contents of the complaint or the statements of the complainant

13.  Action Taken____ Since the above report reveals commission of an offence

14.  Signature/ Thumb Impression the complainant or Informant and the signature of the officer in charge.

15.  Date and time of dispatch to court:

2.Investigation:

Section 176 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita outlines the procedure for investigation. It mandates that when an officer in charge of a police station receives information about a potential crime, they must report it to a magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence and proceed to the scene to investigate. The officer in charge or designated subordinate officer must go to the crime scene to investigate the facts and circumstances and potentially arrest the offender. There are exceptions, such as when the information is about a specific person and the case is not serious, or if there's no sufficient ground for investigation. For offenses punishable with seven years or more, a forensic expert must visit the crime scene, collect evidence, and the process must be video graphed. In rape cases, the victim's statements should be recorded at the residence at preferred location, preferably by a woman police officer and potentially with the help of technology. Any electronic communication or device that contains digital evidence can be summoned by the police.

1.     Scene of offence Panchnama - The scene of offence panchnama is a document prepared by police for recording observations and findings at the scene of crime witnessed and verified by independent individuals who are called as panchas. It aims to ensure transparency and credibility in investigation by documenting the condition and evidence found at the crime scene. The scene of offence panchnama must be signed by at least 2 panchas.

2.     Rough Sketch - A rough sketch of a crime scene is a basic on site drawing that provides a general overview of the location and the relationship of key items to each other. It’s not drawn to scale and focuses on capturing the initial layout and important features of the scene rather than precise measurements. Rough sketches are crucial for planning the investigation and documenting the initial state of this scene.

3.Gathering of Evidence:

The police further gather evidence to build a case, including physical evidence, testimonial evidence and documentary evidence. This evidence helps to determine if a crime occurred. Whether there is a prima facie conduct of a crime and that the perpetrator is identified for supporting conviction in court. The evidence or statements collected by the police is only for the purposes of omissions and contradictions. The real testimony given by a witness in the court. The statements collected by the police do not have any evidentiary value in the court.
Further, in regard to a murder case, the following procedure is followed:

1.     Inquest Panchnama: An inquest panchnama is a document prepared during an investigation into a suspicious death as mandated by Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It details the circumstances of death, including the condition of the body, any visible injuries, and the apparent cause of death, with the aim of determining if the death was unnatural.

2.     FSL: FSL or Forensic Science laboratories play a crucial role in analysing evidence, reconstructing events, and identifying suspects. They provide scientific analysis of the physical evidence like DNA, fingerprints, and trace materials as well as analysing substances like drugs and toxins. The FSL trace materials as well as analysing substances like drugs and toxins. The FSL' S generate unbiased scientific reports to aid investigations, helping establish facts and potentially link suspects to the crime.

3.     Post Mortem Examination: Post - mortem examination, also known as an autopsy or necropsy, is a medical procedure involving the examination of a deceased person's body to determine the cause and manner of death. This examination can be crucial in cases where the cause of death is unknown, suspicious, or when further investigation is needed for legal or research purposes.

4. Apprehension of the accused: As soon as an accused is found or is said to be near a place or a residence. The accused is apprehended. Apprehension of the accused generally refers to the act of arresting or taking a person into custody for a crime. It can also refer to the state of fear or anxiety experienced by an individual who anticipates arrest. The term also relates to the mental process of understanding or perceiving something, including the fear of being arrested. An important rule to remember while the accused is apprehended is as per Section 57 of CrPc. The section mandates that an accused person must be presented before a magistrate within 24 hours of their arrest. The Telangana High Court has clarified that this 24 hour period starts from the movement of apprehension, not from the formal recording of the arrest. Here, the following process to collect the statement of the accused is followed:

1.     Confession cum Seizure Panchnama: It is a legal document that records both the     suspect's confession and the seizure of evidence during a police investigation. It combines a statement of guilt with records of the items taken by law enforcement, often from the suspect's position. This type of document is used to establish a link between the suspect, the crime, and the evidence, and it serves as a crucial piece of evidence in court.

2.     Charge Sheet/Final Report: After the completion of an investigation, a charge sheet or a final report is filed by the police in charge. A Charge Sheet is a formal document prepared by law enforcement after an investigation, outlining the specific charges against an individual accused of a crime and detailing the evidence supporting those charges. It's essentially a report submitted to a court initiating the former prosecution of the accused. Whereas in the absence of prima facie evidence, a final report is filed, it would likely be a closure report indicating a lack of sufficient evidence to proceed with a trial. A final report under Section 173(2) CrPc is a formal document that can include a charge sheet if sufficient evidence is found, or a closure report if the investigation doesn't support the allegations.

5.Trial:
Pre-trial Procedures:

1.     Summons:  Summons is a formal legal document issued by the court requiring a person to appear in court at a specific time and place. The summons is issued to individuals who are believed to possess information or evidence, either through testimony or by producing documents that are relevant to the case.

2.     Section Alteration Memo (If required): A Section Alteration  Memo is used to formally amend the charges in a charge sheet after it has been filed. This is typically done by the prosecution to correct errors, add new charges based on evidence, or reflect a change in the legal interpretation of facts. If there's a requirement of a section alteration or section modification, then it must be filed by the police before the commencement of the trial.

3.     Further Investigation on the orders of a magistrate: A magistrate can order a further investigation under section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but they generally cannot order a reinvestigation. Further investigation is a continuity of the original investigation. If the magistrate feels that the police has not done proper investigation or the evidence collected cannot establish the case prima facie, under these circumstances, the magistrate can order further investigation.

Post-Trial Procedures:

1.     Witness Examinations: Witness examination and the collection of depositions are crucial components of legal proceedings in court. Examination of witnesses involves questioning individuals who have knowledge of the case. It includes chief - examination and cross - examination by both the prosecution and the defence councils. Chief - Examination is when the party who called the witness begins by asking open-ended questions to establish the witness's direct knowledge of the events. Cross - Examination is when the opposing party then questions the witness, aiming to test their credibility and potentially reveal inconsistencies or biases. Re - examination is when the original party may then ask for the questions to clarify any points raised during cross examination.

2.     Adducing evidence in the court: Adducing evidence means presenting evidence to the court to prove a fact or support a claim. This evidence can be oral, documentary or electronic in nature. The party bringing the evidence is responsible for presenting it in a way that is admissible under the rules of evidence. It must be unambiguous, understandable and clear. Generally, evidence is adduced in the court during the time of the investigation of the investigation officer. In a murder case, evidence includes material objects collected at the scene of offence.

3.     Arguments before the court: Arguments before the court refers to a spoken or written presentation of legal reasons as to why a party believes their case should be decided in their favour. There are two types of arguments, oral arguments and written arguments. Oral arguments are spoken presentations made to the court, often in addition to the written briefs where lawyers or parties representing themselves explain their position and answer the court's questions. Whereas written arguments are formal documents that layout the legal arguments, evidence and legal reasoning supporting a party's position.

4.     Judgment: Last stage in the procedure of a criminal case is a judgment. Judgment is the court's formal decision, a pronouncement in a case stating the outcome and the reasons for it. It is the judge's statement that determines the rights and obligations of the parties involved, and it is the basis for a decree or order.

Relevancy of facts, admissions and confessions as per the Indian Evidence Act and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam

The most important aspect to understand especially in criminal law is the relevance and the importance of facts, admissions and confessions and their value in the practical sense. 

Relevancy of facts	Admissions	Confessions
Relevancy of facts is given in Sections 5 to 16 in the Indian Evidence Act and from Sections 3 to 14 in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam	Admissions have been given from Sections 17 to 23 in the Indian Evidence Act and from Section 15 to 21 in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.	Confessions have been given from Sections 24 to 30 and Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, whereas Sections 22 to 24 and section 26 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.

Relevancy of facts:

The law allows evidence to be presented regarding facts that are directly in issue in a case as well as those that are legally defined as relevant. However, this side is limited by procedural laws that may restrict when and how certain evidence can be introduced. Facts that are part of the same transactions as a fact in issue are considered relevant, even if they occur at different times or places, as long as they are connected.

 Events that explain the occasion or effect of a fact, an issue, or relevant fact are also admissible. This includes the circumstances under which those events happened or any opportunity that made them possible. Motive and preparation for an act are important, as they determine the conduct and behaviour of parties before or after an event, especially when such conductors influenced by or influences the relevant fact. Evidence that helps introduce or explain other relevant facts, supports or rebuts inferences, establishes identity, location, time, or relationships connected to the fact in issue is also considered relevant in cases involving conspiracies, acts or statements by any conspirator related to the common objective or admissible against all involved.

 Facts that may not be seen directly relevant become so if they contradict or strongly support a factor issue in damage claims. Any fact helping the court determine the amount to be awarded is relevant when a right of custom is in question. Past actions, recognitions or disputes concerning the facts is considered relevant. A person's state of mind or body, such as intention, good faith, or negligence, becomes relevant when these mental or physical conditions are an issue. Past conductors or similar past incidents can help determine whether an act was accidental or intentional. Lastly, if the particular act usually done according to a specific business practice, the existence of that practice becomes relevant in deciding whether the act was done.

Admissions:

An admission is defined as a statement made by a person that suggests an inference about a fact, an issue, or a relevant fact, provided it's made under legally recognized circumstances. Statements made by a party involved in legal proceedings or by their agent, authorized either expressly or implicitly, are considered admissions. These are significant because they can be used against the person making them in the course of a trial. However, there are limitations when the statements are made by parties acting in a representative capacity. Such statements are not treated as admissions unless they were made during the time the person held that role. Additionally, statements made by individuals who have a proprietary or financial interest in the subject matter of a case, or from whom a party has derived such interest, are admissible only if made while their interest was still active. Statements made by a person whose status or liability is necessary to establish a party's claim or defence are also considered admissions, provided such admissions or statements would be relevant in a case against the person making them and were made while they held that status or were under that liability. Similarly, if a party refers to someone else for information about a disputed matter, any statements made by the referred person may be treated as admissions. Admissions are relevant and can be used as evidence against the person who made them or their legal representatives. However, they cannot be used in favour of the person making the statement unless certain exceptions apply. These exceptions include instances where the admission would be relevant between third parties if the person was deceased, where the admission relates to a mental or physical state relevant to the case and is accomplished by behaviour that makes its falsehood unlikely, or where the statement is relevant for reasons beyond being an admission.
Overall admissions regarding the contents of a document are generally not relevant unless the party offering them can demonstrate entitlement to present secondary evidence of the document, or if the authenticity of the document are generally not relevant unless the party offering them can demonstrate entitlement to present secondary evidence of the document, or if the authenticity of the document is itself in question. Furthermore, Several proceedings of an admission is not considered relevant if it was made with the understanding and express or implied that it would not be used as evidence in court.

Confessions:

Confessions made by an accused in criminal proceedings are considered irrelevant if they are obtained through inducement, threat, coercion or promise from a person and authority that could reasonably lead the queues to believe they might gain an advantage or avoid harm. However, if the Court is satisfied that the influence of such inducement or coercion has been fully removed at the time of making the confession, then the confession becomes relevant. Additionally, confessions did not become irrelevant merely because they were made under secrecy, deception, intoxication, or without proper warning, provided they were otherwise voluntary.
Confessions made directly to police officers are inadmissible as evidence against the accused and the same rule applies to confessions made while in police custody, unless made in the immediate presence of magistrate. An exception exists if the accused, while in custody, provides information that leads to the discovery of a fact. In such a case, the part of the statement that directly relates to the discovered fact may be admitted as evidence. When multiple accused persons are jointly tried for the same offence, a confession by one that implicates both may be considered against the others. Provided they are part of the same trial.
Statements made by persons who are dead, missing, incapable of testifying, or whose presence would be unreasonably difficult to procure can be admitted in specific situations. These include statements regarding the cause of death, entries made in the ordinary course of business, statements against one's own interest, or those expressing opinions on public matter, relationships or customary practices Documents such as wills, deed or family records containing such statements may also be treated as relevant, provided they were made before any dispute arose regarding the matter in question.

By,
Sreevinda Challapalli
4^th Year - BBA. L.LB
Icfai University (Icfai Law School), Hyderabad