TYPES OF TRIALS : SOME COMMON FEATURES
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) establishes a tiered approach to criminal trials, scaling the detail of proceedings to the severity and complexity of the offense to ensure judicial resources are used efficiently.
Criminal cases are primarily classified into warrant cases—offenses punishable by death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment exceeding two years—and summons cases, which cover less severe crimes.
Based on this framework, the BNSS categorizes trial procedures into four distinct modes: trials before a Sessions Court, warrant case trials by Magistrates, summons case trials by Magistrates, and summary trials.
While the first two modes generally govern warrant cases and the latter two apply to summons cases, the statutory framework maintains procedural flexibility, permitting minor warrant cases to undergo summary trial to streamline justice without sacrificing basic fairness.
1. LANGUAGE OF THE COURTS
Under Section 307 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), State Governments hold the authority to determine the official language of all courts within their jurisdiction, with the exception of the High Court.
To prevent language barriers from compromising trial fairness, Sections 312 and 316 of the BNSS set out dedicated mechanisms for accurately recording witness testimony and accused statements whenever a speaker uses a language distinct from the court’s language.
Meanwhile, proceedings before the Supreme Court and High Courts are constitutionally mandated to be conducted in English, subject to any specific language exceptions authorized pursuant to Article 348 of the Constitution of India.
2. POWER OF THE COURT TO SUMMON ANY MATERIAL WITNESSES OR TO EXAMINE PERSONS PRESENT
Under Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)—formerly Section 311 of the CrPC—, courts are vested with wide, judicious discretionary powers to summon, examine, or recall any witness at any stage of a trial if their testimony is deemed essential to achieving a just decision.
This authority applies to both Magistrates and Sessions Courts from the earliest stages of evidence, and any court-appointed witness is subject to cross-examination by both the prosecution and the defense, provided a proper examination-in-chief is conducted first.
The power is neutral and designed to uncover the truth rather than serve a single party; however, courts strictly guard against misuse, rejecting witness recall applications driven by post-trial affidavits or mere claims of previous counsel incompetence to prevent trial delays and witness hardship.
Additionally, Section 349 of the BNSS empowers a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class to compel any person, including the accused, to provide specimen signatures, handwriting, finger impressions, or voice samples whenever necessary for investigative or judicial proceedings.
3. POWER OF THE COURT TO ORDER PAYMENT OF EXPENSES OF COMPLAINANTS AND WITNESSES
Under Section 350 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the State Government is responsible for establishing rules that govern the reimbursement of expenses incurred by complainants and witnesses attending court during criminal proceedings.
To ensure that individuals testifying or participating in an inquiry, trial, or legal proceeding are not subjected to financial hardship, any criminal court holds discretionary authority—subject to existing state regulations—to order the government to pay reasonable attendance and travel expenses directly to the complainant or witness.
4. COMMISSIONS FOR THE EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES
While the standard criminal procedure requires evidence to be taken in open court to observe witness demeanor and protect cross-examination rights, Section 319(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) provides an exception by allowing courts to issue commissions to examine witnesses when in-person attendance would cause unreasonable delay, expense, or inconvenience.
This judicial discretion must be exercised cautiously, though it becomes mandatory when high dignitaries—such as the President, Vice-President, Governors, or UT Administrators—are required as witnesses.
To safeguard fairness, Section 319(2) allows courts to mandate that the prosecution cover the accused’s legal costs incurred during a prosecution commission, while Section 324 provides for trial adjournments while commissions are executed.
Governing provisions under Sections 320 through 325 detail execution across different territorial jurisdictions, and Section 322 ensures that adversarial rights remain intact by permitting parties to examine and cross-examine commissioned witnesses either via written interrogatories or through direct legal representation.
5. SPECIAL RULES OF EVIDENCE
(1) Deposition of medical witness.
Under Section 326(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), special evidentiary rules are established to save time and reduce costs by allowing the recorded deposition of a civil surgeon or medical witness—attested by a Magistrate in the presence of the accused or taken via commission—to be admitted as valid evidence without requiring the doctor’s physical presence in court.
However, under Section 326(2) BNSS, the court retains the power, and must upon application by either party, summon and examine the doctor regarding the contents of their deposition.
This procedural exception applies strictly to expert medical opinion; if a doctor is testifying regarding factual occurrences they personally witnessed rather than professional expert analysis, standard witness trial procedures apply.
(2) Identification report of Magistrate.
Under Section 327(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), an identification report concerning a person or property signed by an Executive Magistrate is directly admissible as evidence during inquiries, trials, or other legal proceedings without requiring the Magistrate’s personal appearance as a witness.
However, under the proviso to Section 327(1) BNSS, any witness or suspect statements embedded within the identification report that trigger Sections 19, 26, 27, 158, or 160 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) must fully conform to those evidentiary restrictions to be usable in court.
Furthermore, Section 327(2) BNSS grants the court the power to summon and examine the Executive Magistrate on the subject matter of the report at its discretion, while making such examination mandatory if requested by either party to the case.
(3) Evidence of officers of the Mint
Under Section 328(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), written reports prepared by gazetted officers of any government Mint, Note Printing Press, or Security Printing Press on matters submitted to them for examination are directly admissible as evidence during criminal proceedings without requiring the officer’s personal court appearance.
While Section 328(2) BNSS permits the court to exercise its discretion to summon and examine the officer on the contents of the report, the officer remains protected from producing the underlying records.
Furthermore, under Section 328(3) BNSS, and in alignment with privilege protections under Sections 129 and 130 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), the officer is prohibited from revealing evidence derived from unpublished official documents or disclosing the specific technical tests applied during their examination without prior permission from higher authorities.
These legal safeguards maintain strict security around currency and document verification methodologies to protect public interest and prevent the large-scale forgery of bank notes, revenue stamps, and official records.
(4) Reports of certain government scientific experts.
Under Section 329(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), written reports signed by designated government scientific experts regarding matters submitted to them for chemical, forensic, or technical examination are directly admissible as evidence in any inquiry, trial, or legal proceeding without requiring the expert to appear in court.
Under Section 329(2) and (3) BNSS, the court maintains the discretion to summon the expert, though if the expert cannot attend in person, they may depute a qualified colleague familiar with the case to testify on their behalf unless the court explicitly commands personal appearance.
This provision applies to a specific list of officials under Section 329(4) BNSS—including Chemical Examiners, the Chief Controller of Explosives, Directors of Finger Print Bureaus and Forensic Science Laboratories, Government Serologists, and other government-notified experts.
Although these scientific reports are automatically admissible without formal oral testimony, their actual probative weight is ultimately evaluated by the court based on factors such as the reliability of the underlying data, the analysis methodology used, the thoroughness of the conclusions, and the vulnerability of the expert’s core premises.
(5) No formal proof of certain documents.
Under Section 330(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), any party filing documents before a court must list their details in a prescribed form, prompting the opposing party or their advocate to formally admit or deny the genuineness of each document within 30 days of receipt.
While the first proviso to Section 330(1) allows courts the discretion to extend this 30-day timeline upon recording written reasons, the second proviso clarifies that expert witnesses are exempt from appearing in court unless a party explicitly disputes their report.
Furthermore, under Section 330(3) BNSS and its proviso, if a document’s authenticity is undisputed, it is admitted directly into evidence without requiring formal proof of the signatory’s signature, though the court retains full discretionary power to mandate proof of signature whenever deemed necessary.
(6) Affidavits in proof of certain matters.
Under Section 331 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), when allegations concerning a public servant are raised in a court application, the applicant is permitted—and the court may in its discretion order—that evidence proving those alleged facts be submitted via affidavit.
Additionally, Section 332 BNSS provides that evidence of a routine or procedural nature can be submitted through a sworn affidavit, saving judicial time and reducing travel expenses for witnesses who only testify to formal points.
However, the court retains the authority to summon and examine any such deponent, and it must do so if requested by any party to the proceeding.
Finally, Section 333 BNSS establishes the legal boundaries regarding the scope of such affidavits and specifies the authorized officers before whom they must be formally executed and sworn.
(7) Proof of previous conviction or acquittal.
Under Section 334 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), establishing a record of previous conviction or acquittal is vital in legal proceedings, particularly when determining whether an accused qualifies for enhanced punishment under provisions like Section 13 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
The statute provides specific evidentiary methods to prove these prior judicial outcomes, allowing parties to submit either a certified copy of the court’s judgment or sentence, or—in cases of conviction—a certificate signed by the officer in charge of the jail where the sentence was served or the original warrant of commitment.
Crucially, regardless of which documentary proof is produced, Section 334 mandates that it must be accompanied by corroborative evidence verifying the identity of the accused to confirm that the person currently before the court is the exact same individual referred to in the prior record.
(8) Record of evidence in the absence of the accused.
While Section 308 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) mandates that evidence must normally be taken in the presence of the accused, Section 335 BNSS sets out two statutory exceptions.
Under Section 335(1) BNSS, if an accused person absconds with no immediate prospect of arrest, a competent court may record prosecution witness depositions in their absence; upon the accused’s subsequent arrest, these depositions can be admitted as evidence against them if the witness has died, is incapacitated, cannot be located, or cannot attend without unreasonable delay or expense.
Furthermore, under Section 335(2) BNSS, where a major offence punishable by death or life imprisonment is committed by unknown perpetrators, the High Court or Sessions Judge may direct a Judicial Magistrate First Class to hold an inquiry and record witness testimony.
If a suspect is later identified and tried for the offence, these recorded statements are admissible in evidence against them provided the witness has died, become incapable of testifying, or is beyond the territorial limits of India.
(9) Evidence of public servants, scientific experts and medical officers in certain cases.
Under Section 336 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), when a report or document prepared by a public servant, scientific expert, or medical officer is required in court, but the original author is unavailable due to transfer, retirement, death, incapacity, or potential procedural delay, the court shall secure the presence of their official successor in office to testify regarding the predecessor’s report.
To ensure efficiency, the second proviso to Section 336 BNSS permits the court to take the successor’s deposition through audio-video electronic means.
Additionally, the first proviso to Section 336 BNSS sets a strict precondition that no public servant, expert, or medical officer will be summoned by the court in the first place unless the report in question is formally disputed by one of the parties involved in the trial or inquiry.
6. COURT'S POWER TO HAVE LOCAL INSPECTION
Under Section 347(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), a Judge or Magistrate is empowered to conduct a local inspection of a crime scene or any other relevant site at any stage of an inquiry or trial to properly evaluate and appreciate the evidence presented in court.
Prior to visiting the location, the court must give formal notice to all parties involved, and following the site visit, the judicial officer must promptly draft a written memorandum outlining all relevant physical facts observed.
As mandated by Section 347(2) BNSS, this memorandum becomes part of the permanent judicial record, and any party to the trial is entitled to receive a copy free of cost upon request.
Importantly, this power is restricted strictly to visual and site inspection rather than conducting an independent local inquiry, with the decision to exercise this judicial discretion resting on the specific circumstances of each case.
7. ATTENDANCE OF PERSONS CONFINED OR DETAINED IN PRISONS BEFORE CRIMINAL COURTS
Sections 301 through 306 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) govern the legal mechanics for securing the attendance of prisoners and detainees before criminal courts, drawing directly from principles established under the Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act, 1955.
Under Section 302(1) BNSS, a court is empowered to order the officer in charge of a prison to produce a prisoner whenever their presence is required to respond to criminal charges, participate in proceedings, or testify as a witness.
However, this authority is subject to statutory exemptions: Section 303 BNSS grants the State or Central Government the power to exclude certain individuals from physical court production, while Section 304 BNSS permits prison officials to withhold production under specific contingencies such as sickness or physical infirmity.
Where no exemption applies, Section 305 BNSS mandates the execution procedure for prison officers to comply with production orders, whereas Section 306 BNSS provides an alternative mechanism by empowering the court to issue a formal commission to record testimony from a prisoner-witness without requiring their transfer to the courtroom.
9. COURT'S POWER AND DUTY TO EXAMINE THE ACCUSED PERSON
Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)—formerly Section 313 of the CrPC—establishes both the power and duty of the court to examine the accused person so they may personally clarify any incriminating circumstances presented by the prosecution.
The court may ask questions at any stage without prior warning, but it must conduct a general examination after prosecution witnesses have testified and before defence presentation begins.
While this examination can be dispensed with in summons cases where personal attendance is excused, it remains strictly mandatory in warrant cases.
To safeguard fairness, the questioning is conducted without administering an oath, the accused faces no criminal liability for lying or remaining silent, and the court may seek assistance from both prosecution and defence counsel in drafting clear, accessible questions or allow the accused to file a written statement.
Courts are strictly prohibited from using this process as a cross-examination trap.
Although these recorded statements do not constitute formal evidence and cannot serve as the sole foundation for a conviction, they aid in evaluating prosecution proof, and false pleas raised by the accused may be treated as additional circumstantial evidence.
Under Sections 316 and 318 BNSS, stringent recording rules ensure accuracy: all Q&As must be logged in full by the judge, read back and explained to the accused, signed by both parties (with a 72-hour window for signatures during virtual examinations from custody), though summary trials are exempt from these strict recording formalities.