INTRODUCTION
As outlined by the Manu Ancient Indian jurisprudence laid strong emphasises on the principle that no innocent should be punished and outmost caution should be made while letting the guilty free. However, this practice is hard to attain as we follow adversarial legal system which is known as accusatorial legal system where the prosecution and the accused present their case to the jury who is acting like an umpire who ensures adherence to legal rules and procedures. Thus, punishing the guilty is not an easy task as crimes are committed in a secretive manner, investigation itself involves lots of challenges while collecting evidences and preserving those evidences as human and institutional capacity has inherent limitations. In ancient times the confession even by coercive means was considered essential for the disclosure of the truth. However, with regard to human dignity realization comes into the picture that such practices, torture or forceful confession will not serve the purpose and rather will hurt the innocent persons. In ancient Indian criminal law various offences like assault, breach of trust, molestation, perjury, cheating etc were identified and penalized.
Democratic governance needs Indian criminal justice system as it internal part. The law enforcement body, judiciary and penal institutions plays an important role in maintain the rule of law, preventing crime and maintain the rights of the individuals. New criminal laws aim to get rid of the old colonial era and focuses to deliver NYAYA to the victim which can be further inferred by the ideology of the new criminal laws.
Justice was normally meted out by the ruler or, in his absence, by proxy judges. Punishments mostly, however, assumed the form of pecuniary fines whose proceeds were absorbed by the royal exchequer rather than falling into the hands of the victims. This initial system reflects a chronic bias—one that, to some extent, continues to dominate the present day—towards punishment over compensation to victims.
Roman legal thought’s impact on Western jurisprudence introduced an even more formalized approach to defining crime, centring on individual rights and public order. In the modern period, criminal behaviour’s scope and complexity have widened to a great extent, which calls for a re-evaluation of legal principles as well as institutional arrangements. The modern system not only has to discourage crime but also has to make society in a way that an individual can feel secure in his person, property, and liberty.
Essentially, a criminal justice system is measured by how successful it is to deliver swift and effective justice. Article 20 (3) of the constitution gives the right against self-incrimination which ensures no one cannot be enforced to incriminate themselves. Legal protections come into the picture from the moment the person is arrested and continue up to the trial stage which is the evidence of the commitment of the due process of law. The prime aim is to punish the culprit while protecting the rights of the accused and maintain procedural fairness. But despite these safeguards, Indian justice system faced procedural flaws. The prompt and unbiased is needed which in turn needs public trust in the police. Unfortunately, widespread distrust in the public and procedural lapses continue to be the rule and which serves to undermine the credibility of the system.
Defence lawyers, police, public prosecutors, the judiciary, and the legal aid organizations plays a vital role to ensures that conflicts are resolved in efficient and speedy manner that to in time. If the system is to perform at its best, coordination among them must be impeccably timed with robust values shared by way of transparency, responsibility, and sensitivity.
The last two decades witnessed the Government of India rolling out a series of reform initiatives with the aim of achieving modernization in the justice system. A landmark was the establishment of the National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms in 2011, which attempted to reduce judicial delay and enhance accountability by introducing standards of performance, infrastructure building, and procedural improvements.
Parallels, the e-Courts Mission Mode Project has utilized information technology to make case management and court administration better. Almost 19,000 district and subordinate courts have been computerized and large video conferencing facilities have connected courts and prisons so that access to justice has increased significantly. Initiatives such as establishing e-Sewa Kendra’s, virtual courts, and e-filing and e-payment systems have further made processes easier, enhancing efficiency and transparency.
In addition, the Judicial Infrastructure Scheme, which is a centrally sponsored scheme, which was launched at the beginning of the 1990s, continues to support the building of court halls, judges’ residences, lawyers’ chambers, and other infrastructural facilities. These developments have enhanced judicial accessibility and created an inclusive legal framework. Over ₹11,167 Cr have been invested in these up gradations since the scheme has been launched.
Efforts to add judicial capacity have included periodic appointment of judges. Between May 2014 and July 2024, 62 judges were appointed in the Supreme Court, along with nearly a thousand appointments and clearances in the High Courts. The sanctioned strength of the judges in the High Court’s has also risen considerably, which shows the government’s resolve to address the arrears of the cases.
To enable early disposal of sensitive cases like those relating to women, children, and government officers, Special Courts and Fast Track Courts have been established. Up to mid-2024, there were 866 Functional Fast Track Courts and 755 Functional Fast Track Special Courts (of which 410 POCSO courts were functioning for specific purposes). Together, they disposed of more than 2.5 lakh cases.
Other forms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) such as Lok Adalat’s and Mediation have been actively promoted to reduce the burden on traditional courts. Tele-Law and the Nyaya Bandhu program are also indicative of the focus of the government towards legal empowerment and access to justice being equal, especially for rural and disadvantaged communities.
Though these institutional reforms represent a great leap in the justice delivery system, there are still significant challenges. Despite progress in digitalization and infrastructure development, timely and affordable access to justice remains out of reach for the majority. Hurdles in procedures and delays still curb the system.
Statement of the Problem
In December 2024, nearly 70% are under trial detainees. Delays in trials not only erode public trust but also put enormous psychological stress on the victim and on the accused. Most of the accused end up in jail for many years without trials as most of the accused are bread earners of the families and delays in trials led them to financial destruction and family disintegration. Delays in trials solidifies victim’s trauma and erodes faith in judicial system. Several high profile cases like Kolkata 2024 rape case in which a trainee doctor was killed in a hospital shocked the nation which calls for speedy justice and more safety measures for the women.
The government introduced new criminal laws in July 2024 to reshape the criminal justice system and to change the ideology to give Nyaya to the victim. These new laws include Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA). However, these laws have been criticized as excessive arbitrary powers have been given to the police authorities without giving their accountability which brings risks on civil liberties.
It is the intention of this study to examine these system issues and call for reforms so that accountability can be given and enhanced prompt justice while safeguarding the interest of all.
Research Methodology
The study uses doctrinal method, applying legal texts, statutes and cases as well as legal scholarship for a very exhaustive description of the subject. Constitutional provisions, enactments of legislation and judicial pronouncements are primary sources whereas scholarly journals, Law Commission Reports and author’s comments are considered as secondary.
Additionally, the research draws on recent case law and empirical reality to make its theoretical arguments, more grounded in lived realities and theoretically relevant will serve to increase the heuristic value of these findings for practice.
Significance of the Study
To maintain law and order while safeguarding the civil rights of citizens, the functioning of the criminal justice system needs to be effective. However, in India, the public’s faith in legal institutions has diminished due to the existing administrative lags and the intricate processes that need to be followed.
This research is given strength by the emphasis it places on the victim’s experience within the criminal justice system’s context—a view often underemphasized in favour of the procedural and institutional one.
Hypotheses
1. Procedural delays and institutional inefficiencies are the main factors responsible for undermining public confidence in legal institutions.
2. Although recent legislative reforms are welcome, they need strong implementation frameworks to actually make a real difference.
3. Enhanced collaboration among the police, the judiciary, and correctional services is necessary to facilitate the prompt administration of justice.
NEW CRIMINAL LAWS 2023
The criminal codes passed in 2023—the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA)—are a radical departure from India’s colonial era criminal justice system. The new codes aim to introduce a system that better reflects today’s democratic values, allows for developments in technology, and places emphasis on victim-centred justice. Unlike the old laws 0f penal code criminal procedure and the evidence act which were framed during the British rule during the colonization period, the new legislation aims to “Indianize” criminal jurisprudence by injecting local principles, confronting modern-day issues, and facilitating procedural efficiency.
At least the most impressive progress is towards more lucid and plain language employed in the legal provisions so that the law is now more understandable for legal specialists as well as members of society at large. The IPC and IEA have shed the verbose, often ambiguous expression which made them out to be replaced with the straightforward, modern expression found in the BNS and BSA.
The BNSS also streamlines the justice delivery system by imposing strict timelines—90 days for inquiry and 180 days for trial in serious cases—a crucial reform to check judicial delays and ease the huge pendency of cases in Indian courts. This is an improvement over the CrPC, where there were no such specific timelines, resulting in long under trial detention without a proper trial.
In terms of prosecutorial changes, the BNSS now requires a forensic audit for all serious crimes which seeks to improve proof quality by minimizing reliance on witnesses who routinely turn hostile and controlling scope for manipulation. The BSA also fills an important void by acknowledging electronic communication and digital information, which the Indian Evidence Act failed to address especially in the context of cyber crimes, capturing digital evidence, and without the provisions of considering it as evidence. The new act also adopts provisions meant to limit, to further increase victim participation, allowing victims to be heard during bail hearings, reinforcing their far too important role in the workings of justice because the system largely neglected that area in the previous regime.
Particularly, the inclusion of provisions for in absentia trials of fleeing offenders, enhanced witness protection programs, and improved court appearance enforcement mechanisms indicates a more balanced approach to addressing the longstanding procedural deficiencies. While the earlier system was mostly punitive and reactive, the modern legal regime is proactive, preventive, and participatory. Although the ultimate success of these reforms will rest on the effective execution, training of stakeholders, and infrastructural modifications, the 2023 criminal law reforms un-categorically modernize, simplify, and make the system of justice in India more accessible relative to the archaic laws they seek to replace.
ACCUSED UNDER THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION
An accused person is not only an arrested or detained individual, either in custody or in prison, but also any individual suspected of being involved in committing a crime or other offense.
In criminal adversarial proceedings, the accused is not required to produce evidence. They can be exempted from being questioned by the prosecutor or judge unless they choose to testify. If they do provide their testimonies, they are open to cross-examination and can be convicted of perjury if their testimonies are untrue. In the adversarial model, the defendant is innocent until he or she is found guilty, can remain silent, and does not have to incriminate him or herself. The prosecution has the entire burden of proof and must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, the defendant is a passive party in the trial, relying on his or her defence attorney to refute the prosecution’s arguments and evidence.
Accused-Centric Approach: Ensuring Fair Trial
1. Presumption of innocence: -The cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence, the presumption of innocence, remains intact. The new laws ensure that the rights of the accused are not compromised.
2. Legal Protection
The reforms uphold the following principles:
• Right to Legal Representation: The accused are not denied their right to legal representation.
• The right against self-incrimination is upheld.
The presumption of innocence is upheld.
The rule of law states that no person is presumed to be guilty until his or her guilt is proven by a fair and unbiased trial. Therefore, accusation alone does not lower the dignity of the accused during investigation.
The accused person is considered to be innocent of the aforementioned criminal act, either done intentionally or negligently, until established otherwise beyond reasonable doubt.
The accused person is innocent until found guilty under criminal justice system.
It is the duty of the prosecution to rebut this presumption by bringing evidence that establish the guilt of the accused and confirms the charge. Further, if the introduced evidence may reasonably be interpreted in two meanings-one of which infers guilt and the other innocence, the meaning that is in favour of the accused must be applied.
Benefit of doubt is awarded to the accused if the court entertains a reasonable doubt about his guilt.
However, the court has no jurisdiction to disregard prosecution evidence as fanciful, inadmissible, speculative, or speculative in nature. Instead, the court will need to consider the totality of evidence to make there an organic approach towards appraising the case. All such evidence, either in the interest of the prosecution or in the interest of the innocence of the accused, shall be weighed very carefully to find the guilt or innocence of the accused In the case of Kali Ram, it was pointed out that while wrongful acquittals are not desirable and undermine public confidence in the judiciary, wrongful conviction of an innocent person is of far greater significance, and its effect is acutely felt in a civilized society.
For instance, if an innocent individual is wrongly convicted of murder and sentenced to death, the damage flowing from the wrongful conviction is irreparable. Similarly, if the innocent person gets imprisoned and brought to jail and prison for having committed a wrong that he did not commit, the emotional as well as mental scars caused due to miscarriage of justice can never be recovered from irrespective of what happens subsequently. Few of the victims of wrongful conviction are as fortunate as Dreyfus to have someone such as Emile Zola advocating their cause and having their unwarranted sentence overturned. They serve to underpin the prime significance of ensuring, as much as can reasonably be done, that innocent persons are not wrongfully convicted. While there will ever be some danger of convicting the innocent in any criminal justice system, the danger can be minimized but never eliminated. Therefore, until the guilt of the accused is finally determined and established beyond a reasonable doubt, there must be a presumption of innocence. The presumption is present except when the guilt of the accused is finally established on judgment day.
THE CONCEPT OF BAIL: AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
Bail is an essential component of India’s criminal justice system, where the accused’s rights are weighed against the interests of the state. Bail serves as a safeguard of the accused’s liberty and respect for their right to fair hearing.
As Nelson Mandela had maintained in 1995, “It is said that no one truly knows a nation until one has been inside its jails. A nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens, but its lowest ones.”
The tradition of bail being given has existed in criminal justice systems from early English law. During the early times of criminal justice administration, arrest for serious crimes would be followed by imprisonment without preliminary hearing, at times having individuals locked up for extended periods prior to a judgment in court. This placed the need for an alleged person to have provisional release until the determination of his or her case into the limelight. A person accused, thus, is entitled to the same protection of liberty and life as any other individual. The arrested persons were, therefore, granted provisional release on bail by depositing a bond with sureties to guarantee that they reported for trial when required and did not interfere with evidence or harass witnesses.
Release of the arrested people subject to certain conditions was favoured on many accounts. It was cheaper and cumbersome, and a lesser alternative compared to incarceration. Secondly, by the law then in existence, in case an escaped prisoner, heavy punishment faced the jailor, even facing death. Conditions in the jails themselves were appalling with poor food and hygiene. Equilibrating the freedom of the accused against the safety of the public from criminals was also key, and bail was a crucial aspect of the judicial process.
The bail system perpetuates the socioeconomic imbalance of society’s vulnerable groups. Individuals with limited financial mean struggle to pay bail and are trapped until released, while those with resources are effortlessly freed. This creates an inequitable system where the money a person has dictates how criminal suspect’s treated, further feeling the systematic bias entrenched within the justice system. Currently, there are proposals to change the bail system in ways that uphold the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty.’ In some jurisdictions, there are alternatives to cash bail—risk assessment methodologies—that measure the probability that a person will appear in court and assess their threat level to public safety. These changes aim to lessen the focus on monetary limitations and increase the emphasis on the defendant’s court attendance, public safety, and presumption of innocence. To sum up, bail is a fundamental feature of the criminal justice system, but its use should not violate the right to be presumed innocent. The balance between public safety and the rights of the accused is essential; the bail system should ensure presumption of innocence while serving justice to all involved.
Types of Bail in India and Their Conditions
1. Regular Bail
2. Anticipatory Bail
3. Interim Bail
4. Bail on Personal Bond
5. Statutory Bail (Default Bail)
CONSTITUTION AND POWER OF CRIMINAL COURTS IN INDIA: A COMPARITIVE STUDY OF THE BNSS, 2023 AND CRPC 1973.
The substantive criminal law is enforced by the criminal procedure law. In India, the first criminal procedure law was enacted in 1861, which was later replaced in 1898. The 1898 law was also updated in 1923. The recommendations provided by fifth law commission’s 41st report, the criminal procedure code of 1973 were enacted. This Code is still in force until date, but the Indian Legislature has passed the bill “Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023” (shortly referred to as BNSS), which will eventually replace the Code of 1973. According to Mr. Amit Shah, the Home Minister of India, the prime motive behind passing the new criminal law is to replace the British-era laws and give justice to the victims because the current laws were primarily focused on punishment rather than justice. This article shall examine the amendments introduced by the BNSS with respect to the constitution and jurisdiction of criminal courts in India
Classes and Constitution of Criminal Courts
Section 6 of the Code and BNSS prescribes the four classes of courts, excluding the High Court and Special Courts, in every State. The four classes of courts, according to the BNSS, are:
• Sessions Court
• Judicial Magistrate of the First Class
• Judicial Magistrate of the Second Class
• Executive Magistrate
In the BNSS, metropolitan magistrates’ and metropolitan areas’ terms are abolished. While the Code granted judicial powers of the first class as Metropolitan Magistrates to metropolitan magistrates, the BNSS does away with the post of metropolitan magistrates and the term metropolitan areas altogether.
Composition of the Sessions Court
As per Section 8 of BNSS, the Session Court will comprise only the Session Judge, who is the court’s presiding officer and the Assistant Session Judges. The presiding officer will be appointed by the High Court of the concerned State and can also appoint Additional Session Judges.
According to the BNSS, the office of Assistant Sessions Judge which was previously mentioned in Section 9 of the old Code has not been mentioned in the current composition of the Sessions Court.
Constitution of the Court of Judicial Magistrates
Under Section 11 of the Code and Section 9 of the BNSS, the Court of Judicial Magistrates is the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class and the Court of Judicial Magistrate Second Class.
The State Government with the concurrence of the High Court can also establish special Courts of Judicial Magistrate of first or second class. The appointment of the judges of these courts is the responsibility of the High Court.
As per Section 12 of the Code and Section 10 of BNSS, each Judicial Magistrate of first class shall be appointed as the Chief Judicial Magistrate or Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Sub-divisional Magistrate by the High Court.
Moreover, every Chief Judicial Magistrate is subject to the Sessions Judge, and every Judicial Magistrate is subject to the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
Constitution of the Court of Executive Magistrates
The executive magistrate will be appointed as the district magistrate or additional magistrate by the state government according to section 14 of the
The State Government can also appoint one of the Executive Magistrate as a Sub-divisional placed in charge of Sub-division or Special Executive Magistrate for any specific area or for any specific classes of cases.
All the Executive Magistrates will be under the control of the District Magistrate and all the Executive Magistrate employed in any Sub-division will be under the control of the Sub-divisional Magistrate under section 17 of the BNSS.
Powers of Criminal Courts
According to Section 28 of the Code and Section 22 of the BNSS, the High Court may sentence any sentence which is provided for by law. Similarly, a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge may also sentence any sentence provided for by law; however, if either sentences a death sentence, it must be confirmed by the High Court of the relevant State.
As BNSS does not accept the term of office “Assistant Sessions Judge,” it does not provide for the powers which such Judges may exercise.
Section 29 of the Code and Section 23 of the BNSS empower a Chief Judicial Magistrate to sentence a convict to any punishment less than death, imprisonment for life, or to imprisonment for more than seven years.
A Judicial Magistrate of the First Class may impose imprisonment for a period of three years and/or a fine of fifty thousand rupees. According to the Code, the highest rate of fine which could be imposed by a Magistrate of the First Class was ten thousand rupees, but the BNSS has increased it to fifty thousand rupees.
Further, the Judicial Magistrate of second class can also sentence for the period not more than one year and/or for the fine not more than ten thousand rupees. As per the Code, the maximum levied by the Magistrate of Second class is five thousand rupees, but it is enhanced to ten thousand rupees in BNSS.
According to Section 30 of the Code and Section 24 of the BNSS, a court of a Judicial Magistrate may sentence imprisonment in default of payment of fine, up to the levels prescribed under the Code and the BNSS. Also, such imprisonment in default of fine can be subsequent upon the substantive sentence awarded under Section 23 of the BNSS.
Further, Section 25 of BNSS also addresses the case of conviction of the various offences. The above-mentioned Section provides that the court can award various sentences in one trial for various offences of the same individual subject to section 9 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. And the Court shall make it clear that the sentences shall run consecutively or concurrently. But here also it must be observed that no court shall remit the offender for trial before the superior Court merely on the ground the sum of the various punishments is exceeding the punishment which it is capable of awarding on conviction of the single offence.
Nevertheless, two important conditions prevail:
1. No person shall be sentenced to imprisonment for more than fourteen years.
2. The aggregate penalty for a series of offences shall not exceed twice the maximum sentence which the court can pass on conviction on an individual offence.
SENTENCING
Sentencing is the last step in the criminal process and is the final result of cases leading to a conviction. Sentencing is a crucial element of criminal law for society. The sentencing procedure is an integral part within the greater context of the criminal justice system. Each sentence is a reflection of the concern for public safety and protection. Essentially, the core purpose of sentencing is to make the accused understand that his act was not only harmful to society, of which he is a part, but also to his own future as an individual and as a member of society. Essentially, sentencing is used to deter the criminal from committing such acts again in the future. It also serves to deter other persons and endeavors to reform the offender, re-tuning them to become law-abiding members. Sentencing, being the vanguard of the judicial procedure, is an imperative tactic under criminal law to bring about social defense and restore the offender.
It is a widely known fact that the Indian criminal justice system has no unifying theory of punishment. Every theory has its own importance, and it is a proven fact that no theory has been accepted by all penologists universally. The Indian criminal justice system adopts the aspects of several theories each having different strengths and weaknesses.
Section 53 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) prescribes different kinds of punishments, of which the death penalty and life imprisonment are the most controversial. The IPC, being the main criminal law act in India, gives judges a great deal of discretion in deciding the quantum of punishment. Judges are supposed to look at the character of the offender and take into account the circumstances—whether aggravating or mitigating—under which the crime was committed. To a certain extent, sentencing is a personality exercise based on the penal philosophy of the judge. Nevertheless, the courts will always have to ensure proportionality between the offense and the penalty.
The process of sentencing—or the imposition of punishment—is one of the strongest pillars of the Indian criminal justice system, considering that the future of the offender greatly hangs in the balance. Further, sentencing has a social impact. Disparities in India’s sentencing policies have, on occasion, resulted in a denial of justice. Not only the offender but the victim—and, consequently, society—also lose out from arbitrary or discretionary sentencing.
Perhaps the most egregious criticism of the Indian sentencing system is the inconsistency in the scope and duration of sentences. This lack of consistency is both reflected within the Indian Penal Code itself as well as in sentencing patterns. Of particular concern is the untrammeled discretion available to judges, particularly in death penalty and life imprisonment cases where so much is at stake for the future of the offender.
The enactment of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has made considerable changes to the classification, constitution, and functions of criminal courts, in lieu of provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The new legislation has done away with the ideas of metropolitan courts and metropolitan areas and abolished the title of Assistant Sessions Judge. The Indian Legislature seeks to create a legal framework free from colonial-era laws passed by the British.
VICTIM
The term “victim” can be used for a person who has suffered injury, either singularly or cumulatively, resulting from an act or default constituting a breach of criminal law. This injury may take the form of physical injury, mental trauma, emotional distress, economic loss, or infringement of fundamental rights. According to the definition provided by Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a “victim” may be defined as one killed, injured, harmed by an accident, crime, or other occurrence; one assaulted, injured, or deprived of something by another person; or one deceived, cheated, or harmed by an undesirable incidence such as disease or an accident.
The enactment of India’s new criminal codes in 2023—i.e., the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA)—marks a major shift towards a victim-centric criminal justice system. These enactments, to be implemented on July 1, 2024, are intended to supersede the British-era Indian Penal Code (IPC), Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and Indian Evidence Act, respectively. Below is a critical analysis of the victim-centered provisions in the new law compared to the existing legal framework.
Victim-Centric Provisions in the 2023 Criminal Laws
1. Enhanced Access to Justice
• Online Reporting of Crime: Complaints can now be lodged online, eliminating the necessity of physically going to police stations.
• Zero FIR: FIRs can be lodged at any police station, regardless of jurisdiction, providing instant action.
• Free Copy of FIR: The victim is also eligible for a free copy of the FIR, promoting transparency and active engagement in the legal process.
2. Active Participation in Legal Proceedings
• Right to Be Heard: Section 360 of the BNSS stipulates that the victims should be provided with an opportunity to be heard prior to the withdrawal of the prosecution, acknowledging their key role in the justice process.
3. Timely Investigations and Trials
• Investigation Timelines: Investigations in woman and child cases should be completed within two months to speed up the process of justice.
• Trial Timelines: Courts should issue judgments within 45 days after the end of arguments, so as to bring down long-duration litigation.Reuters+3Reuters+3Reuters+3
4. Strengthened Protections for Vulnerable Victims
• Anonymity in Sexual Offences: Section 72(1) of the BNS protects confidentiality for sexual offence victims, with penalties for violations.
• Addition of New Offences: The BNS adds new offences like mob lynching and organized crime, dealing with modern-day issues and providing victims means to seek redress.
5. Mandatory Forensic Investigations
• For serious offences punishable by seven years or more, forensic investigations are now mandatory, enhancing the quality and reliability of evidence.
COMPARISON WITH PREVIOUS LEGAL PROVISIONS
| Aspect | Old Legal Framework | New Legal Framework (2023) |
|---|---|---|
| Victim Participation | Limited; victims had minimal role in prosecution decisions. | Victims have the right to be heard before withdrawal of prosecution. |
| Filing FIRs | FIRs had to be filed in the jurisdiction where the offence occurred. | Introduction of Zero FIR allows filing at any police station. |
| Investigation Timelines | No specific timelines mandated for investigations. | Investigations in cases involving women and children must be completed within two months. |
| Trial Timelines | No mandated timelines for delivering judgments. | Judgments must be delivered within 45 days post-arguments. |
| Victim Anonymity | Protected under Section 228A of the IPC. | Continued protection under Section 72(1) of the BNS. |
| Forensic Investigations | Not mandatory; dependent on case specifics. | Mandatory for offences punishable by seven years or more. |
| Recognition of New Offences | Limited to traditional offences; lacked provisions for modern crimes. | Inclusion of offences like mob lynching and organized crime. |
CONCLUSION
The 2023 criminal law amendments mark a paradigm shift towards a victim-centric justice system in India. By advancing provisions improving the participation of victims, ensuring expeditious investigations and trial, and providing safeguards for vulnerable sections, the new laws bridge the existing lacunae in the legal regime. Yet, ensuring the effective implementation of these provisions will be paramount in translating the desired gains and reviving confidence in the criminal justice system.