Table of Contents (Nominal) CONTENTS Page No. Chapter 1. Introduction 1-16 Chapter 2. Data Analysis 17-89 Chapter 3: Major findings 90-117 Chapter 4: How long the Wheels of Justice shall hold 118-144 on for appearance of the accused? Chapter 5: Whose case is it in any way? Police, 145-166 Prosecution or the Victim Chapter 6 Can there be a time frame for completing 167-175 Investigation? Chapter 7 Recommendations 176-182 i Table of Contents (Detailed) Chapter Page No. CONTENTS No. List of Abbreviations vii List of Cases viii - x List of Tables xi Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1-16 A. What amounts to delay? 7-13 B. Objectives of the Study 14 C. Limitations of the Study 14 D. Methodology 14-16 Chapter 2 DATA ANALYSIS 17-89 A. Stage I: Analysis of Form 1 17-29 B. State II: Analysis of Form 2, 3 and 4 30-40 C. Stage III: Sample Study of life cycle of 41-49 pending and disposed of cases D. Stage IV: Questionnaires 50-89 Chapter 3 MAJOR FINDINGS 90-117 A. Non-appearance of the accused at 90-95 different stages of Trial B. Fall out of absconding on criminal 95-98 ii adjudication C. Procedural and penal safeguards to 98-102 check and deal with non-appearance of the accused D. How far Sec.299 Cr.P.C been 102-107 effective? E. Avoidable delays at the stage of 107-111 commitment of cases to the court of sessions F. Delay at the stage of Prosecution 111-116 Evidence G. Delay at the Stage of Investigation 116-117 H. Conclusion 117 Chapter 4 HOW LONG THE WHEELS OF JUSTICE 118-144 SHALL HOLD ON FOR APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED? A. Right to fair trial vis-à-vis Right to 119-120 defense B. Whether there is a right of the 120 accused to confront the witness of the Prosecution? C. Whether right to confront witness 121-123 covered under Fundamental Rights? D. Identification of accused in Absentia 123 iii Trials E. Deliberate Non-appearance v. Right 123-125 to Defense: Doctrine of ‘Trial in Absentia’ F. Doctrine of ‘Trial in Absentia’ – 125-126 Rationale G. Doctrine of ‘Trial in Absentia’ – 126-143 Comparative view of Criminal Jurisprudence a. English Law 126-132 b. Trial in Absentia – Canadian 132-134 Perspective c. ‘Trial in Absentia’ in Australia 134 d. American Jurisprudence vis-à- 134-140 vis Trial in Absentia e. Position in New Zealand 140-141 f. Position in Bangladesh 141-143 H. Trial in Absentia: International 143-144 Scenario I. Conclusion 144 Chapter 5 WHOSE CASE IS IT IN ANY WAY? 145-166 POLICE, PROSECUTION OR THE VICTIM A. Present prosecution structure in 149-150 iv India B. Objective behind bifurcation of police 150-151 and prosecution wings C. Practical spin-off of bifurcation on 152-154 police and prosecution D. Production of evidence during trial 154-155 E. Reason for failure of bifurcation 155-157 F. System of prosecution world wide 157-163 a. Germany 158 b. Japan 158-159 c. Kenya 160 d. Pakistan 160 e. England and Wales 160-162 f. Korea 162 g. America 163 G. Conclusion 163-166 Chapter 6 CAN THERE BE A TIME FRAME FOR 167-175 COMPLETING INVESTIGATION? A. Relevant judicial pronouncements: India 168-172 o State of Andhra Pradesh v. 168-170 P.V.Pavitharan [1990] AIR SC 1266 o Vineet Narain v. Union of India 170 v 1996 SCC (2) 199 o Niranjan Hemchandra Shashittal 171-172 v. State of Maharashtra 2013 (4) SCC 642 o Pankaj Kumar v. State of 172 Maharashtra AIR 2008 (SC) 3077 B. Comparative Study: Vietnam Criminal 173-175 Procedure Code C. Conclusion 175 Chapter 7 RECOMMENDATIONS 176-182 Bibliography Annexure I i- vi Annexure II vii-xiii Annexure III xiv-xx Annexure IV xxi-xxv Annexure V xxvi-xxvii vi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AIR All India Reporter All E R All England Reports Art. Article Cr.P.C Criminal Procedure Code Cri Criminal EHRR European Human Rights Report FF Final Form G.R General Register Jhr Jharkhand MANU Manupatra NCMS National Court Management Systems NJDG National Judicial Data Grid NSWCCA New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal NSWLR New South Wales Law Reports Para. paragraph PIL Public Interest Litigation QB Queen’s Bench S.T Sessions Trial SASC Supreme Court of South Australia SC Supreme Court SCALE Supreme Court Almanac SCC Supreme Court Cases Sec. Section Supp Supplementary U.N. United Nations U.S. United States u/s Under Section VLR Victorian Law Reports w.e.f With effect from vii W.P Writ Petition LIST OF CASES Name of the Case Page No. A 1. Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S.Nayak AIR 1992 8 SC 1701 2. AG Vs Shiv Kumar Yadav [2015] 4 Crimes (SC) 1 3 3. Appabhai Vs State of Gujarat 1988 Supp SCC 241 105 C 4. Cf Crosby v. U.S., 506 U.S. 255, 262 (1993) 136, 137, 138, 139 5. Citizens' Cause Vs. The State of Jharkhand and 109 Ors. (W.P.(PIL) 858 of 2009), D 6. Diaz v. United States 223 U.S. 442 (1912) 124, 140 F 7. Falk v. United States 181 U.S. 618 (1901) 124 G 8. Gagan Thakur Vs State of Jharkhand 2004 CriLJ 108 1910(1912) (jhr). H 9. Haider Ali & Anr. V. DPO Chakwal & others, Civil 160 Petition No.1282 of 2014 10. Hopt v. Utah, 110 US 574, 28 L Ed 262, 4 S Ct 135 202 (1884), I 11. In R v Williams (10 September 2004) HC AK CRI 140, 141 2003-404-025445 J 12. James G. Starkey (1979), Trial in Absentia, 53 (4) 124 St. Jhon’s Law Review 1979 13. Jayendra Vishnu Thakur Vs State of Maharastra 121 and another (2009) 7 SCC 104 L 14. Lala v. Netherlands [1994] 18 EHRR 586, at 129 p.597, para 33 M 15. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (AIR 1978 SC 2, 4 597 16. Mbenge v. Zaire, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/OP/2 (Mar. 143 25, 1983) N 17. Niranjan Hemchandra Shashittal v. State of 171 Maharashtra 2013 (4) SCC 642 18. Nirmal Singh Vs State of Haryana AIR 2000 SC 102, 105 1416 viii P 19. Pankaj Kumar v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2008 172 (SC) 3077 20. Pelladoah v. Netherlands [1994] 19 EHRR 81, at 129 p.94, para 40 21. Poitrimol v. France (1993) 18 EHRR 130 (ECHR) at 143 [31] R 22. R v Dunn (4 June 2008) HC AK CRI 2008-404- 140, 141 000076; 23. R v Guo and Hui (22 February 2006) HC AK CRI 140 2004-004-18566 24. R v McFall (7 April 2005) HC HN CRI 2004-019- 140, 141 20514, 25. R v Williams (10 September 2004) HC AK CRI 140, 141 2003-404-025445 26. R v. Abrahams [1895] 21 VLR 343 at 347 128 27. R v. Dunn (4 June 2008) HC AK CRI 2008-404- 140, 141 000076 28. R v. Howson, [1981] 74 Cr.App.R 172 128 29. R v. Jones 1972 2 All ER 731 125, 126, 127, 129, 130, 140 30. R v. Jones [1998] SASC 7021; 134 31. R v. Jones, Planter and Pengelly [1991] CrimLR 128 856 32. R v. McHardie [1983] 2 NSWLR 733; 134 33. R v. Parakau [2002] DCR 699 140 34. R v. Serrano (ruling No.5) [2007] VSC 209, 134 35. R v. Sthmer, (17 June 2003) HC WN T064/01; 140 36. R v.van Yzendoorn [2002] 3 NZLR 758 (CA) 140 37. R Vs Hayward [2001] Q.B.862 132 38. R Vs. Governor of Brixton Prison, exp Caborn- 126 Waterfield 1960 (2) QB 498 at 508-509 39. R Vs. Jones {Rew}{2}1972 2 All E R 731 127 40. R. Vs. Cornwell (1972) NSWLR I (NSWCCA) 127 41. Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar (I) 9 MANU/SC/0640/1998 42. Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar(II) 10 MANU/SC/1655/1999 43. Rasiklala v. Kishore Khanchand Wadhwani (AIR 91 2009 SC 1341) S 44. S.K. Shukla Vs State of U.P. AIR 2006 SC 413 157 45. Sanjay Jumar Singh Vs State of Jharkhand 103 W.P.(Cr) No.46 of 2010 46. Santoro v. United States, 409 U.S. 1063, 93 S.Ct. 138 554, 34 L.Ed.2d 516 (1972) ix 47. Satyajeet Banerjee vs. State of West Bengal [2005] 171 1 SCC 115 48. State of Andhra Pradesh vs P.V. Pavitharan [1990] 168 AIR(SC) 1266 49. State of Gujarat v Kishan Bhai (2014) 5 SCC 108 152, 154, 155, 156 50. State v. Whitley, 85 P.3d 116 (2004) (Depublished 139 Opinion), Arizona Court of Appeals (based on Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure) T 51. Tailor Vs. US, Mass, 94 S.Ct. 194 135 U 52. U.S. Illinios Vs. Allen, III, 90 S.Ct.1057 122 53. U.S. v. Tortoro 464 F.2d 1202 (2nd Cir.), 125 54. United States v. Peterson, 524 F.2d 167 (4th Cir. 137 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1088, 96 S.Ct.881, 47 L.Ed.2d 99 (1976), 55. United States v. Sanchez, 790 F.2d 245 (2d Cir.), 138, 149 cert. denied, 479 U.S. 989, 107 S.Ct. 584, 93 L.Ed.2d 587 (1986), V 56. Vineet Narain Vs Union Of India 1996 SCC(2) 199 170 W 57. William Slaney vs. State of M.P [1956] AIR (SC) 2 116 Z 58. Zahira Habibulla H.