Author(s): Alok Mishra

Email(s): prof.rnmishra1941@gmail.com

DOI: 10.52711/2454-2687.2023.00002   

Address: Alok Mishra
Principal, P.G. Law College, Satna (M.P.) 485001.
*Corresponding Author

Published In:   Volume - 11,      Issue - 1,     Year - 2023


ABSTRACT:
The Criminal Justice System represents the cutting edge of governance. Towering over society, it parades an array of institutions, processes, people, and penalties to reinforce its images. This array includes policemen in uniform, constables with batons or lathis, the police station, courts, jail, bail, sentence, prisons, imprisonment, death row, the gallows, hanging and death. Each of these institutions and processes is part of the Criminal Justice System and yet partly autonomous within it. But a matter of great concern is that there arise multiple questions about whether these institutions are working/functioning properly within their ambit or not. Is there lack of implementation of provisions of criminal law by the enforcing agencies? Whether the recommendations of law commissions are adequately implemented? Whether the Malimath Committee’s Report on Criminal Law Reforms are being adequately addressed and enforced. Is adversarial system of criminal justice in India suitable in the present-day context, or it is high time to accept few principles of inquisitorial system of justice as it is prevailing in common law countries. With these few questions, in the present paper, the researchers have made an attempt to introduce our criminal justice system. The researchers further focuses on reforms recommended by the Law Commission. Finally, the researchers have suggested some important changes/modifications required in the prevailing criminal justice system in India to make it more streamlined and strengthened.1


Cite this article:
Alok Mishra. Indian Criminal Reformation: A critical analysis. International Journal of Reviews and Research in Social Sciences. 2023; 11(1):11-6. doi: 10.52711/2454-2687.2023.00002

Cite(Electronic):
Alok Mishra. Indian Criminal Reformation: A critical analysis. International Journal of Reviews and Research in Social Sciences. 2023; 11(1):11-6. doi: 10.52711/2454-2687.2023.00002   Available on: https://ijrrssonline.in/AbstractView.aspx?PID=2023-11-1-2


REFERENCES:
1.    Allan T.R.S., Human Rights and Judicial Review: A Critique of “Due Deference”, (2006)
2.    Julian Rivers, Proportionality and Variable Intensity of Review, (2006)
3.    Paul Craig, The Courts, The Human Rights Act and Judicial Review, (2001).
4.    Kathi Ranning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra, 1952 SCR 435.
5.    Re Special Courts Bill, (1979) 1 SCC 380; V.C.Shukla v. Delhi Administration, 1980 (Supp) SCC 249; State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722; State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, AIR 1994 SC 1872.
6.    P.B. Gajendragadkar, Law, Liberty and Social Justice, (Asia Publishing House, London,1965)
7.    Anwar Ali Sarkar v. State of West Bengal, 1952 SCR 284; Lachamandass v. State of Bombay, 1952 SCR 224 protesting and striking down laws with special ‘pick and choose’ procedures, but contrast more indulgent Court in Kathi Ranning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra, 1952 SCR 435.
8.    Re Special Courts Bill, (1979) 1 SCC 380; V.C.Shukla v. Delhi Administration, 1980 (Supp) SCC 249
9.    See Part III of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Chapter-II of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Chapter-IV of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002.
10.    K.D. Gaur, Criminal Law, Criminology and Administrtive of Criminal Justice 230, (Central Law Publications, Allahabad, 4th e.dn.,2019)
11.     See Sections 113B and 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 53 of the Prevention of Terrorist Act, 2002.
12.    Law Commission of India, “33rd Report on sec 44, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898”, (September, 1967).
13.    Law Commission of India, “84th Report on Rape and allied offences some questions of Substantive Law, Procedure and Evidence”, (1980).
14.    Law Commission of India, “91st report on Dowry Deaths And Law Reform: Amending The Hindu Marriage Act,. 1955, The Indian Penal Code, 1860. And The Indian Evidence Act, 1872”, (August, 1983).
15.    Law Commission of India, 102nd Report on “Sec 122 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Imprisonment for breach of bond for keeping the peace with surety”, (April, 1984).
16.    Law Commission of India, 141st Report on “Need for amending the law as regards power of courts to restore criminal revisional applications and criminal cases dismissed for default in appearance”,(1991).
17.    Law Commission of India, 142nd Report on “Concessional treatment for offenders who on their own initiative choose to plead guilty without any Bargaining”,(1991).
18.    Law Commission of India, 178th Report on “Recommendations for Amending Various Enactments, Both Civil and Criminal”, (December, 2001).
19.    Law Commission of India, 179th Report on “The Public Interest Disclosure (Protection of Informers) Bill 2002”, (Janurary,2003)
20.    Law Commission of India, 154th Report on “The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973”, (1996).
21.    Law Commission of India, 156th Report on “The Indian penal code, 1860”, (August, 1997).
22.    Law Commission of India, 185th Report on “The Indian Evidence (Amendment) Bill, 2003”, (March, 2003). 22 Law Commission of India, 180th Report on “Article 20(3) of The Constitution of India and The Right to Silence”, (May, 2002).
23.    Law Commission of India, 177th Report on “Law Relating to Arrest”, (December, 2001).
24.    Law Commission of India, 155th Report on “The Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic substance”, (July, 1997).
25.    Law Commission of India, 173rd Report on “Prevention of Terrorism Bill, 2000”, (April, 2000).
26.    See the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002.
27.    See Malimath Committee Report, p. 49 where the Committee quotes Bentham as saying that the Rule is “one of the most pernicious and most irrational notions that ever found its way into the human mind”; . Also see Recommendation 8 p. 267 which suggests for amendment of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
28.    See Malimath Committee Report, p. 53 for the adverse inference to be drawn when an accused refuses to answer questions and pr. 3.50 and 3.51 pp. 56-57 where the Report notes that the accused should present a statment of defence at the beginning of the trial.
29.    See Malimath Committee Rport, Recommendation 13, p. 270. Accordingly, the Committee recommends that a clause be added in Section 3 on the following lines: "In criminal cases, unless otherwise provides, a fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court is convinced it is true.". Also see P.Venkatesh and B.Subramainan titled “Presumption of Innocence in Criminal Law”, 2000, Criminal Law Journa, p. 129.
30.    Article 14(2) of the ICCPR provides “Every one charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until he is proved guilty according to law”; See also the ICI Position Paper, p. 21 where from the Human Rights Committee of the ICCPR is quoted to have stated that “by reason of the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof is on the prosecution and the accused has the benefit of the doubt. No guilt can be presumed until the charge has been proved beyond reasonable doubt”.
31.    See Malimath Committee Report, Recommendation 37 at p. 276.
32.    See Malimath Committee Report, p. 123 where it is noted that “if the conclusion is audio/video recorded, it would lend further assurance that the accused was not subjected to any form of compulsion”.
33.    Malimath Committee Report, Recommendation 14 at p. 270-272 (Rights of the victim); Recommendation 15 p. 272 (separation of the investigation and the law and order wings0; Recommendation 63 p. 280 (review of qualifications prescribed for appointments of judges at different levels); Recommendations 79-89 pp. 284-85 (rights of witnesses); Recommendation 119 p. 291 (broadening the definition of 'penetration' in Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code)

Recomonded Articles:

Author(s): Sanjay Kumar

DOI:         Access: Open Access Read More

Author(s): Jayant Minj, Dr. Abdul Alim Khan

DOI: 10.5958/2454-2687.2017.00008.9         Access: Open Access Read More

Author(s): Madhurima Verma, Sandeep Buttola

DOI: 10.5958/2454-2687.2019.00046.7         Access: Open Access Read More

Author(s): Paramita Bhattacharyya

DOI: 10.5958/2454-2687.2019.00032.7         Access: Open Access Read More

Author(s): Suvarna Inamdar

DOI:         Access: Open Access Read More

Author(s): Nupur Trivedi

DOI:         Access: Open Access Read More

Author(s): Tripti Chandrakar

DOI: 10.5958/2454-2687.2020.00010.6         Access: Open Access Read More

Author(s): Abdus Salam

DOI:         Access: Open Access Read More

Author(s): Srabanee Ghosh

DOI:         Access: Open Access Read More

Author(s): Veena Devi

DOI:         Access: Open Access Read More

International Journal of Reviews and Research in Social Sciences (IJRRSS) is an international, peer-reviewed journal, correspondence in....... Read more >>>

RNI:                      
DOI:  

Popular Articles


Recent Articles




Tags