Fundamental of Indian Criminal Law
The development of Indian Criminal justice system
has seen various phases. Right from ancient code to present modern Criminal
procedure has its own history to support it existence. Unlike today, there were
no legal practitioners or lawyers or advocates to speak instead of parties to
the dispute. Yet, it was modest for its time.
Pre-British Rule:
To our surprise, the legal system was not
administered directly through Kings. It entrusted with concerned village
administration. Mostly, the justice depends upon the caste, shreni, guilds to
administer justice. Kings were only entrusted with the protection of citizens
from external aggression or to conquer new territory. Judiciary was handled
based on the caste of the person who was alleged to have committed an offence.
Example, a Brahmin would get lenient punishment while a Sudra would be
subjected to worse form of punishment even though the offence committed was
same. So with the other castes. Guilds which over looked a specific trade
regulated the conduct of those specific traders. Hence, they were vested with
power to administer justice to that class of traders for any misconduct or
malpractice which made them to administer justice to the entire village
irrespective of the accused profession at the later stages.
Administration of Justice by Kings:
There was little emphasis on King when it comes to
justice. But it was in Dharma Sutras, which mentioned the administration of
justice is one of the duties of the Kings, for the first time. There is no
distinction between private and personal wrong. So there was no distinction
between Civil and Criminal law. The administration of justice is solely based
on the Law of Wrong. Manu Code which was not only limited to law, had details
regarding various well known offenses of the time such as assault, theft,
breach of trust, false evidence, slander, adultery, homicide, libel, etc. Wrong
which are considered felony is dealt with worse form of punishment than the
misdemeanor. Most of the offences were absolved with ‘bot’. Hence, to pursue
justice through Kings were mere option to the parties in dispute.
General Exceptions from Criminal Liability:
However, they made distinction between casual
offenders and habitual offenders. They were not treated alike. As provided by
the modern Indian Penal Code, there was exemption from criminal liability when
some criminal acts are done in self-defense, without any intention or mistake
of fact or by consent or by accident.
Justice under Moghuls:
With advent of invader, India got through many social
changes. One of them is administration of justice. The law was changed
according to the needs of the invaders. Yet, the local village justice
administration went unaffected for the most part. The Kazi administered
Justice. However, the basic nature of Justice didn’t change. Any wrong, the
offender was dealt with punishment.
Defects in the Pre-British Rule:
There were some inherit defects in the
administration of justice. Prior to the advent of British, India was composed
of many independent states controlled by small rulers and chieftain which led
to plurality of laws. Each individual sovereign, even though controlling a
village, enforced laws different from neighboring rulers and chieftains. Though
India was unified under single suzerainty seated at Delhi, the local rulers and
chieftains has independent control over the part of land under their control.
Hence, there was no uniformity in law, unlike British rule brought to India.
Not only it did stop with other enactments such as toll, tax, ferry charges,
etc. but extended to Criminal justice administration.
The offences
which carry criminal liability were almost same, yet there was profound
difference in the justice implementation and methods of dealing the criminal
indicted with such offences.
Modern Criminal Law:
The fundamental principles of modern criminal law
are founded on rules of equity, justice and fair play. The Fundamental
principles governing criminal law administration stated below:
Actus non Facit reum nisi mens sit rea:
The Maxim is “an act in order to become a crime must
be committed with a criminal intent”. An innocent act without criminal intent
will not attract criminal liability. This is to safeguard a person who does a bona
fide act without mens rea which attracts criminal liability. So, any act
without ill intent to cause harm will not attract criminal liability.
The mens rea, criminal intent, denotes the mental
aspect while the actus rea denotes the physical aspect of the crime. But for
mere mens rea the prosecution shall not be initiated. The mens rea must follow
an act or omission which must contradict Criminal Law in force. But any act or
omission on account of self-defense will not attract Criminal liability if the
act or omission is justifiable.
Ignorantia facit excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat:
The Latin maxim states “ignorance of law is no
excuse”. The primary reason for implementing the rule is to prevent abusing
this clause. Any person accused of punishable offence will claim. In order to
avoid frivolous defense, it is forbidden to defend oneself with “ignorance of
law”.
Yet, one can take up “ignorance of fact” as an
excuse from Criminal Liability. It is justifiable to states that the accused is
ignorant of facts. Mistake of fact is admissible while mistake of law is
forbidden. Though, “ignorantia juris” is not acceptable, it is helpful to assess
the mental state of the accused.
Expost facto law:
To make an act or omission to do an act an offence,
then it must be declared by law. For any act or omission which was not stated
in the statue as an offence at the time of commission of the act or omission,
criminal liability will not arise. To be simple, at the time of act, such act
must have been declared as criminal. This is to safeguard innocents who will
later be prosecuted for the past act or omission. Criminal law of any society
stands good for the norms and values of that society. Any uncertainty in
Criminal law will create unrest and unstable society. This was enshrined in the
Article 20 of Constitution of India.
Presumption of innocence:
Unless and until the accused is proved have to done
any criminal act beyond any reasonable doubts, the accused shall be presumed to
be innocent. This was incorporated to protect the interest of the accused to
defend him at any point of the prosecution.
Accomplice:
In Indian Criminal Justice system, the accomplice is
place at par with the accused and liable for the same punishment as the
principal accused. This was upheld in the Post Master Murder Case where the accomplice
claimed that he was merely watching the murder and he was not directly involved
in the murder of the post master and so requested for the release. But the
court decided the other way.
Rights and protection to an accused:
There are several protections to the accused during
trial, before or after the trial. These rights are inalienable. The following
are remarkable rights:
- Right to be produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest
- Right to bail
- To get released on bond
- Right to legal counsel and legal aid
- Right against self-incrimination
- Right against double jeopardy.
The rights which protect accused to fetch a free and
fair trail to the accused. This will ensure no miscarriage of justice is done.
