The Indian Criminal Justice System's key mission is to guarantee a reasonable and unbiased hearing for each and every convict who has been incarcerated on Indian soil. For the prosecution of an accused individual in our nation, we use the adversary method. In this scheme, the prosecutor is liable for demonstrating the accused's guilt without a reasonable doubt. In the historic case of “Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Ors vs. State of Gujarat”,The learned Supreme Court tried to define the concept of Fair trial as a trial before an a fair lawyer, a judicially calm environment, and unbiased judge. A lack of a fair hearing, according to the Supreme Court, is as much an insult to the Accused as it is to the Victim and community.

The adversary scheme focused on the accusatorial approach is the system implemented by the “Criminal Pocedure Code, 1973” (which will be referred as Law further in this paper). In an adversarial structure, the lawyer, on the other hand, is responsible for the production of evidence, while the judge serves as a neutral arbitrator among the parties. In an inquisitorial tribunal, on the other hand, the trial judge is responsible for the production of testimony at trial, and it is based on the wisdom of the trial judge who chooses which of the witnesses may be called at trial and conducts the majority of the witness interviews.

The concept of “Adversary Scheme” is founded on the idea of combining private and public interests, with the public interest being to punish or prosecute the wrongdoer to stop or prohibit him from undertaking more crimes, and the private interest being to an effort to stop fraudulent convictions and preserve personal liberties and his life. This form of criminal trial means that the state, on the one side, will prosecute the wrongdoer through its government counsels and forensic agencies, and that the accused or the wrongdoer, on the different side, will challenge and refute the prosecution's evidence with the strongest counsel available. However, a thorough inspection of the Document indicates that some provisions dispute the Code's rigid implementation.

Sections 240 and 228 , which indicate that the accusation against the accused should be framed by the judge rather than the prosecutors, demonstrate a departure from the adversary trial method.

Sections 304 and 303 , which grant the accused not only the right to be served by a counsel of his choosing, but also the right to obtain legal assistance for his protection at the expense of the state (According to the Article 22(1) of the Constitution of the India the accused a similar right).

Section 311, which enables the learned court to challenge any individual who claims to be witness even though they have not been called as a witness by any group (much of similar type of power is also provided to the court under “Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872”).

Section 313, which requires the judge to interview the wrongdoer or the accused at any point to seek an answer.

Section 320, which includes the court's approval before compounding those violations.

Section 321, which specifies that the prosecutor cannot remove the complaint without the court's approval.

The intention of this paper is to address the concepts of fair courts, particularly the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial. Judge who is autonomous, neutral and professional. Court in a rush The trial can be conducted in public. Knowing about the allegation and getting enough time to react, In the presence of the convicted, a tribunal is held. Proof would be gathered in the presence of the convicted. Prosecution witness cross-examination, double jeopardy ban, and legal assistance This paper would also look at the definition of a reasonable trial and many of the rules that go along with it, as well as the judgments reached by numerous courts under the CRPC.


To study the origin of the concept of the Fair trial under Criminal Justice System in India.

To understand the importance of fair trial.

To understand the principles of fair trial.

To study the important judgments passed by the courts in India.

To form a conclusion of the study.


How did the concept of fair trial originate?

What is the importance of fair trial?

What are the principles of fair trial?

What was the role of courts in giving judgments on the issues of fair trials?

What conclusion is made after the study?


This article takes a doctrinal approach to the methodology, concentrating on the laws and concepts of fair prosecution. The doctrinal approach is concerned with locating the statute, rigorously evaluating it, and constructing rational claims to justify it. As a consequence, it provides a major contribution to legal continuity, accuracy, and assurance. The research's basic knowledge was extracted from legislative material, i.e. primary sources, as well as secondary sources.



The lack of the collocation fair trial in early writings can be established by searching texts where it could be anticipated to appear. There are no uses in Sir Thomas More’s Utopia, a treatise by a distinguished lawyer and Lord Chancellor. There are none among the works of the famous judge, Sir Edward Coke (1552–1634). I searched 289,000 words of his writings and discovered 16 occurrences of fair referring either to persons or to things (“an ancient and fair descended Family de Littleton,” “the fair blossoms and roses of the Crown,” “fair and ancient manuscript”) but none modifying nouns such as trial. The adjective that Coke uses to describe a trial is indifferent.

For example: And to the end that the trial may be the more indifferent, seeing that the safeties of the prisoner consist in the indifferency of the Court, the Judges ought not to deliver their opinions beforehand of any criminal case, that may come before them judicially. You may substitute the word fair in its contemporary sense for indifferent and fairness for indifference. Today, a fair trial allows for judicial impartiality and evidence-based trial. It's only that such an imposition of modern-centric usage on the text would be completely alien to the conceptual cosmos of early seventeenth-century Europe.

THE OLD BAILEY 1674–1834

Even while the concept of a fair trial dates back to the 17th century, it would be naive to suppose that it was as prevalent in legal discourse as it is now. However, it was extremely infrequent between 1674 and 1834, when the OBP covered the era. Counting those that indicate a “test” such as “he determined to give me a fair trial”, there are just 16 instances in the OBP. With 101,102 cases in the record that spans more than 160 years, this is an extremely infrequent occurence that shows how unimportant a fair trial was before 1835. But for the fact that it became popular in the 20th century, it would have been little more than a small oddity, lost to oblivion along with the long gone In 1676, barely two years after the OBP was published for the first time, fair trial was used for the first time in the OBP. Because of this early incidence, it is possible that the phrase was used in courtrooms previous to that date.

Before Easter Term 1676, an Account of Sessions. Fifteen men and a woman were sentenced to death after fair trials. For example, in 1676, the following was written: To rob the king in this manner was an awful and daring attempt; but two others went a step further, presuming to rob God himself by breaking into Enfield Church, and stealing surplice, tippets, a green carpet, some plate, &c from there. On his arraignment, one of them pleaded guilty, while the other was found guilty after a fair trial. The meaning of fair trial can only be inferred from these earliest instances because they are not stated. Other examples, on the other hand, have remarks in the surrounding text that hint at the interpretation.

In the following treason case the reporter says that “it was proved by good evidence that” the defendants had attempted to kill the King: Grove and Ireland were to have acted the most bloody part, for which they were brought to a fair trial at the Old Bailey, where it was proved by good evidence that they (with another) were to have Kill’d the King. The following trial was fair because both parties were heard at length; the prisoner was shown “great Indulgence” and the evidence was “clear and positive”. The trial was long in hearing on both sides, and great indulgence was extended towards him by the Court, as ever was showed to any man.


India's criminal justice system has a vital role to play in this Everyone is deemed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubts. For the prosecution, it's up to them to prove that the accused According to the Latin proverb, the burden of proof lies with the one who asserts and not with the one who denies. Criminal trials in an adversarial system begin with a presumption of innocence that is taken into account throughout.

That's because improper conviction of an innocent individual will undermine the public's faith in the Indian judicial system. On the basis of the presumption by law, we have the presumption of innocence “State of U.P. v. Naresh” and Ors,”, “Chandrappa and ors v. State of Karnataka”, 2007: The Supreme Court held that the presumption of innocence is available to the accused under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person should be assumed to be innocent unless proven guilty by the competent court of law in a criminal trial..



In common law countries, court processes are adversarial in nature. In this arrangement, the right to equality is protected, as both parties have equal representation. It's a two-party system in which the attorneys for each side defend their side and establish the evidence that back them up However, in the inquisitorial system, judges are more involved. To gather evidence, the court is directly involved. As part of the inquisitorial system, the inquiry may be conducted by the judges themselves, which, in certain scenarios, can be prejudiced. Typically, the inquisitorial system is utilised in civil judicial systems, such as those in France or Italy.


Trials are unavoidable in the pursuit of justice. For a trial to be fair and free of bias, it must be performed properly, following all the protocols and steps required. In the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973, the term trial is not defined. During trials, the judicial organisations that have authority over the offence examine the offence to determine if it was committed. According to Section 225 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Public Prosecutor must prosecute every case before the Court of Session.

To be eligible for legal help, a defendant must meet certain financial requirements, as specified in Section 304 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before a court can assign a lawyer for his defence. In that instance, the Court will appoint a pleader at the expense of the State on its own. Due to the fact that both parties are represented equally, this clause ensures that the trial will be fair. S