{"id":356111,"date":"2025-08-08T15:00:44","date_gmt":"2025-08-08T09:30:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=356111"},"modified":"2025-08-08T15:08:32","modified_gmt":"2025-08-08T09:38:32","slug":"bridging-the-procedural-gap-under-the-bnss-rethinking-sessions-courts-powers-to-direct-committal-in-cross-counter-and-connected-cases","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/08\/bridging-the-procedural-gap-under-the-bnss-rethinking-sessions-courts-powers-to-direct-committal-in-cross-counter-and-connected-cases\/","title":{"rendered":"Bridging the Procedural Gap under the BNSS: Rethinking Sessions Courts’ Powers to Direct Committal in Cross, Counter and Connected Cases"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Introduction<\/h2>\n

The problem of uncommitted cases<\/p>\n

Examine the fate of a trial pending before a Court of Sessions (hereinafter, \u201cSessions Court\u201d) for charges of murder and attempt to murder. The accused pleads the right to private defence, asserting that the initial act of assault was initiated by the deceased and complainant-victim as aggressors and that his actions were spontaneous responses. This defence forms the core of a cross-case instituted by the accused, arising out of the same incident, which remains pending before a Magistrate without being committed to the Sessions Court.<\/p>\n

In another instance, examine a situation where a murder case is awaiting its trial by the Sessions Court. The recovery of the murder weapon is made from the possession or at the instance of the accused while being in police custody. This discovery not only constitutes a substantive offence1<\/sup><\/a> under Section 25<\/a> of the Arms Act, 1959<\/a>2<\/sup><\/a> \u2014 generally triable by Magistrate, but also may carry significant evidentiary value in the forthcoming sessions trial as amounting to a discovery statement relevant under Section 23(2) proviso<\/a>, Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023<\/a>3<\/sup><\/a> (formerly Section 27<\/a> of the Evidence Act, 1872<\/a>), if its conditions are met.<\/p>\n

Session cases without context<\/h2>\n

The above scenarios reflect a common challenge: the existence of a cross4<\/sup><\/a> and a connected case, respectively, that are integrally linked to the sessions triable case (also referred to as \u201cprimary case\u201d henceforth) but have not been committed to the Sessions Court \u2014 primarily because they are in themselves triable by a Magistrate as per the law, thereby not being technically mandatory to commit (explained in detail hereafter) to the Sessions Court, irrespective of their nexus with the primary case. This aberration results in the fragmentation of proceedings across different courts, which entails procedural complications and risks a miscarriage of justice, among other implications. Moreover, the challenge compounds in light of the technical impediment manifested in the Sessions Court’s lack of power to call for such cases for its consideration or direct their committal5<\/sup><\/a> for trial. Thus, unless these cases are committed before it, the Sessions Court is left with no effective mechanism to ensure a joint and complete trial in these cases, which are desirable principles in any criminal justice system.<\/p>\n

This article further explores this procedural lacuna, examining the particular interface between Section 232<\/a> of the Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023<\/a> (BNSS)6<\/sup><\/a> [former Section 209<\/a> of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973<\/a> (CrPC)] and Section 362<\/a> of the BNSS, 2023<\/a>7<\/sup><\/a>, and demands for powers of re-examination of Sessions Courts coupled with imposing corresponding duties upon Magistrate and police\/investigating authorities to assess with regards to the existence of any cross or connected case, to prevent abovesaid consequences and uphold the interest of justice.<\/p>\n

Relevant legal framework<\/h2>\n

Before delving deeper, it is pertinent to understand the legal and jurisprudential framework relevant to the discussion. As has often been said, every trial is a voyage of discovery in which truth is the quest. This journey of discovery begins with the evidentiary material gathered during the investigation and finds its true meaning in the judicial appreciation and evaluation, which underscores the vital role of the courts in safeguarding the fundamental purpose of a criminal trial: the pursuit of truth. Therefore, the BNSS and its predecessor, CrPC<\/a>, place significant emphasis on investigation and trial with a comprehensive legal architecture for both stages. These laws identify the courts\u2019 competence to try various offences through Schedule I8<\/sup><\/a> which is read in conjunction with Section 21<\/a> of the BNSS, 2023<\/a>9<\/sup><\/a> (formerly Section 26<\/a>10<\/sup><\/a> CrPC, 1973<\/a>) which confers a concurrent jurisdiction to the Sessions Court to try any offence under the Nyaya Sanhita, 2023<\/a>11<\/sup><\/a> (formerly the Penal Code, 186012<\/sup><\/a>), indicating its plenary power to try all possible cases, unlike the Magistrate whose jurisdiction is circumscribed by the said Schedule based on the nature and gravity of the offence.<\/p>\n

In particular, amongst others, the sessions trial procedure applies to two kinds of cases:<\/p>\n

1. Cases exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, as per the said Schedule, that fall under Section 232<\/a> of the BNSS, 2023<\/a>\/Section 209 CrPC, 1973<\/a> wherein the Magistrate is outrightly disempowered to try, thereby casting a legal mandate upon him to commit the case to the Sessions Court after taking cognizance. For brevity, the article refers to them as \u201cmandatorily committable\u201d cases.<\/p>\n

2. Cases not exclusively triable by the Sessions Court but the Magistrate ought to commit them under Section 362<\/a> of the BNSS, 2023<\/a>\/Section 32313<\/sup><\/a> CrPC, 1973<\/a>. These are cases where the Magistrate is shown to be empowered to try as per Schedule I<\/a>14<\/sup><\/a> of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973<\/a>; however, in light of the other factors, he is satisfied that the trial ought to be done by the Sessions Court by following a similar procedure as applicable to \u201cmandatorily committable\u201d cases. These include a wide-ranging set of cases, such as cross\/counter and connected cases15<\/sup><\/a>, wherein a joint trial (for connected cases) and a separate trial (of the cross-case) by the Court already seized of the matter might be desirable in the interest of justice. Such cases have been described as \u201cotherwise committable\u201d cases henceforth.<\/p>\n

Pertinently, this scheme rests on the foundational principle that cognizance, which denotes the judicial application of mind in the process of continuing further proceedings in a case, is ordinarily16<\/sup><\/a> the prerogative of the Magistrate, who will then determine whether to try the case himself or commit it to the Sessions Court as per the aforestated provisions. This framework reinforces a clear procedural hierarchy wherein the Magistrate’s involvement becomes a necessary preliminary step in nearly every case that eventually reaches the Sessions Court for trial. It, therefore, follows that as the first judicial authority to be engaged with the matter, the Magistrate would be better placed to appreciate the procedural history i.e. gain those insights which might not be readily available to the Sessions Court as it functions primarily in a post-committal capacity.<\/p>\n

Judicial concern about fragmented adjudication<\/h2>\n

Keeping the earlier scenarios in mind where the issue concerns the intersection of both categories of cases in a particular relation to cross\/counter and connected cases that fall within the second category but are intrinsically linked to the primary case that falls under the first category, certain fundamental principles as given below, may be considered.<\/p>\n

To break this down further, firstly, it is pertinent to understand that these two categories of cases are mutually exclusive and operate in distinct domains. This implies that while the Magistrate, after taking cognizance, is statutorily bound to commit the former category of case, the said specific compulsion remains absent in the latter category even though the case concerned might be a cross or a connected case which may legitimately demand (given its interconnectedness by the same incident\/transaction and relevancy of one in another) a committal to the Sessions Court to enable joint or successive trials, ensuring holistic adjudication.<\/p>\n

Secondly, in such cases, judicial consistency remains peremptory. Highlighting the same with a specific reference to cross-cases, the Madras High Court in a case as far back as 192917<\/sup><\/a> observed:<\/p>\n

1. \u2026<\/span> A case and a counter case arising out of the same affair should always, if practicable, be tried by the same court, and each party would represent themselves as having been the innocent victims of the aggression of the other.<\/p>\n

Further, in another case18<\/sup><\/a>, this need was reiterated in the face of a legislative vacuum surrounding the trial of cross-cases. This legislative silence has remained unchanged even after the enactment of the 1973 CrPC<\/a>19<\/sup><\/a>, and the present BNSS also fails adequately to account for this legislative gap. The Supreme Court in Sudhir<\/span> v. State of M.P.<\/span>20<\/sup><\/a> also expressed concern about this legislative apathy. However, given the frequent incidence of cross-cases being filed by parties, the Court in Nathi Lal<\/span> v. State of U.P.<\/span>21<\/sup><\/a> had to issue certain guidelines regarding the trial of such cases which include a separate trial by the same Judge of all such cases in quick succession to each other and a successive pronouncement of judgments in regard thereto. Furthermore, in State of M.P.<\/span> v. Mishrilal<\/span>22<\/sup><\/a>, the Court again reiterated its proclivity for a common adjudicatory authority to try cross-cases. Various courts23<\/sup><\/a> across the country have also delivered a series of judgments24<\/sup><\/a> that resonate with this line of thought.<\/p>\n

It is this judicial consistency that undergirds fairness, coherence in decisions and findings, and effective justice delivery. To exemplify, when cross-cases are not tried together before the same adjudicating authority, it may cause the witnesses to turn hostile in one case due to adverse developments in the other; the accused may secure an acquittal on technicalities or procedural delay, and later may use that acquittal as a shield in the cross-case; or accused might himself be unable to present his defence to the Court’s satisfaction since it forms an uncommitted cross-case. This might frustrate justice, which is the cornerstone of the entire trial process. In fact, given this background where the trial of cross-cases often appears to be complex, there exists a discourse25<\/sup><\/a> advocating for the consolidation of such cases for trial before the same court with an evolved set of governing principles tailored to such trials.<\/p>\n

Nevertheless, the legislative vacuum does not remain adequately filled by these judgments or such discourse. Essentially, for argument’s sake, the same logic applicable to a trial of cross-cases before the same Judge can also be extended to those cases that might not be like cross-cases technically, but are connected being in furtherance or otherwise linked with each other since these principles hold equally relevant and desirable in these cases as well.<\/p>\n

To lend credence to the above argument, a perusal of these laws themselves would reveal that their scheme desires the attainment of the said objectives. An inter-court and case coordination mechanism through provisions relating to sending of cases across courts such as committal, joinder of charges and trial under Sections 241<\/a>–247<\/a> of the BNSS, 2023<\/a>26<\/sup><\/a> (formerly Sections 218-224<\/a> CrPC, 1973<\/a>) aligned with judicial consistency and procedural fairness, Section 448<\/a> of the BNSS, 2023<\/a>27<\/sup><\/a> (formerly Section 408<\/a> CrPC, 1973<\/a>) which pertains to the powers of Sessions Court to transfer cases across courts within its subordination, are a clear manifestation of the same.<\/p>\n

Situating the Sessions Court within the current framework<\/h2>\n

In this backdrop, it can be argued that in the specific factual matrices described at the outset where there remains no guarantee of the committal of the \u201cotherwise committable\u201d cases by the Magistrate, regardless of the dictates of judicial prudence, the Sessions Court’s lack of an enabling power to call for or direct committal of such cases under the existing procedural landscape might undermine the achievement of the aforesaid guidelines and objectives \u2014 however inadvertently. This concern finds indirect support in Sudhir case<\/span>28<\/sup><\/a>, where the Supreme Court dealt with a similar factual matrix and held that the Magistrate ought to commit such cases to the Sessions Court, albeit by nature, they may be otherwise committable. Also, in Venkatrayan<\/span> v. Ganapathy Gounder<\/span>29<\/sup><\/a>, the Madras High Court clarified that the Sessions Court does not have the power to direct committal from the Magistrate, unlike the High Court which has the said power under Section 407<\/a> CrPC, 1973<\/a>30<\/sup><\/a> (presently Section 447<\/a> of the BNSS, 2023<\/a>). Thus, in other words, the effective burden rests upon the judicial brilliance of the Magistrate to be able to filter out such cases that may be linked with primary cases and commit them.<\/p>\n

The above is an unstated but crucial expectation, as there exists no explicit duty upon the Magistrate or adequate governing guidelines for the Magistrates to ensure the existence of any such pending case, cross, counter or connected, from either the parties or the police who might be expected to be well-versed with such eventualities. In his seminal work31<\/sup><\/a>, Manas Kumar Pal sheds light on this aspect, highlighting the practical limitations faced by Magistrates in ensuring joint or successive trials before the same Judge in such cases, regardless of the theoretical desirability of the same.<\/p>\n

Also notable is the absence of any explicit statutory duty upon the police or prosecution to ensure the existence of such cases (even up to the threshold of their bona fide knowledge or investigation) that may be potentially linked to leading sessions triable cases. Moreover, the absence of any superior judicial oversight by the Sessions Court, as also stated above, becomes troubling given the possible malpractices such as collusion between the police and the accused leading to non-reporting or deliberate non-lodging of a connected case, or the filing of a frivolous cross-case to stall prosecution in a genuine matter, investigative bias in charge-sheeting in some cases32<\/sup><\/a>, possible connivance between the Public Prosecutor and defence counsel without any knowledge of the innocent victim, or systemic lapses in the prosecution machinery33<\/sup><\/a>. These factors often delay even the committal itself, and hence cannot be easily disregarded. Their adverse impact on cases especially linked to Sessions triable case without a corresponding provision empowering the Sessions Court opens a window for foul play, forum manipulation, and procedural tactics that can be detrimental to fair trial, the cornerstone of any effective criminal justice system, especially concerning an innocent party whose case would be most prejudiced because of this power disparity.<\/p>\n

At present, in such situations, in the face of such legislative lacuna, the recourse34<\/sup><\/a> mainly lies in filing of an application under Section 362<\/a> of the BNSS, 2023<\/a> (formerly Section 323<\/a> CrPC, 1973<\/a>), before the Magistrate by the parties, or of filing a revision before the Sessions Court or the High Court against his order in case he refuses to commit. However, this scheme also does not guarantee a committal. More importantly, it leads to an unnecessary protraction of the trial and a waste of the Court’s time on a mere point of committal or the ideal forum for trial.<\/p>\n

Dissecting the procedural inconsistency<\/h2>\n

At this juncture, the rationale underlying the existing power anomaly concerning the Sessions Courts warrant closer scrutiny.<\/p>\n

To explain, the initial taking of cognizance by the Magistrate, followed by a committal to the Sessions Court (being the general rule), aims to ensure judicial oversight at an initial stage, thereby filtering frivolous cases and streamlining the committal proceedings. In exceptional cases specified under special laws, these Sessions-level courts, functioning as Special Courts, are even expressly empowered to take cognizance directly, bypassing the Magistrate’s preliminary role by Section 213<\/a> of the BNSS, 2023<\/a>35<\/sup><\/a> (formerly Section 193<\/a> CrPC, 1973<\/a>) and such special laws. Thus, the Sessions Court’s greater judicial experience and wisdom or its competency to try even such cross, counter or connected cases, which it interestingly does not have the power to call for, is not even in question. This is particularly clear since Section 21<\/a> of the BNSS, 2023<\/a> (formerly Section 26<\/a> CrPC, 1973<\/a>) gives it a concurrent competency over all offences. Added to it, in case of any unnecessary committal made to it, the Sessions Court is explicitly empowered to return the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate or other Magistrate of First Class if it finds the case concerned to be triable by them, under Section 251<\/a> of the BNSS, 2023<\/a>36<\/sup><\/a> (formerly Section 228<\/a> CrPC, 1973<\/a>). In this light, when it can return a wrongly committed case, the absence of a corresponding power to call for a committable case renders the statutory design inconsistent.<\/p>\n

Additionally, the legislative intent has historically favoured minimal Magisterial inquiry in assessing a case’s committable nature. This places implicit trust in the Sessions Court’s ability to evaluate such matters after committal, especially when a related case is already pending before it. This is evident in the shift from a full-fledged enquiry under CrPC, 1898<\/a>37<\/sup><\/a> to a mere prima facie satisfaction under CrPC, 1973<\/a> and under the present BNSS by the Magistrate to decide as to the committable nature of a case. Furthermore, even Section 232 Proviso 2<\/a> of the BNSS, 2023<\/a> directs that any application in sessions triable case shall be forwarded to the Sessions Court, thereby ensuring that substantive procedural control lies with the Sessions Court once the committal is effected.<\/p>\n

Addressing objections<\/h2>\n

In light of the given context, empowering the Sessions Court to call for or direct committal from the Magistrate of cross\/counter and connected cases would serve as an effective safeguard against the previously mentioned concerns and facilitate coordinated, fair, and integrated trial of all related matters.<\/p>\n

Here, a theoretical objection may arise that such a provision for an uncommitted case might imply an assumption of cognizance by the Sessions Court, which is a domain reserved for Magistrates, as a general norm, thereby disturbing the existing legal framework. However, this concern might not hold water. The proposed power does not suggest that the Sessions Court take cognizance, as it has already been taken at an earlier stage. Instead, it merely aims to empower the court concerned to ensure the fairness and completeness of the trial by ensuring that all parts of a similar transaction are brought before it, especially when a case (primary case) is already pending before it. The act of cognizance and committal thus continues to remain with the Magistrate, aligning with the statutory design and not promoting a jurisdictional overreach by the Sessions Courts. Judicial precedents such as Sudhir case<\/span>38<\/sup><\/a>, Kewal Krishan<\/span> v. Suraj Bhan<\/span>39<\/sup><\/a>, acknowledge such a functional mechanism as they impliedly directed cases \u201cotherwise committable\u201d pending before the Magistrate to be tried together by the Sessions Court, to preserve trial integrity.<\/p>\n

Another possible objection might arise that separate trials of cross\/counter and connected cases conducted by other courts, even if irregular, might not per se vitiate the proceedings unless they result in demonstrable failure of justice in light of Section 511<\/a> of the BNSS, 2023<\/a>40<\/sup><\/a> (formerly Section 465<\/a> CrPC, 1973<\/a>). Moreover, remedies such as appeal or revision would serve as sufficient guardrails to cure such irregularities, if at all they exist. However, this view underestimates the high risk of prejudice, inconsistent findings, and delays inherent in fragmented trials. In such situations, the likelihood of injustice is not imaginary but real, and empowering the Sessions Court would serve as a necessary preventive measure rather than a curative afterthought.<\/p>\n

The way forward<\/h2>\n

The proposed reform could involve the insertion of a proviso to Section 362<\/a> of the BNSS, 2023<\/a> (former Section 323<\/a> CrPC, 1973<\/a>), much similar to Section 232<\/a> of the BNSS, 2023<\/a> (former Section 209<\/a> CrPC, 1973<\/a>), or to Section 251(1)<\/a>(a<\/span>) of the BNSS, 2023<\/a> (formerly Section 228(1)(a<\/span>) CrPC, 1973<\/a>) empowering the Sessions Court to call for information or direct Magistrate to commit a case arising out of similar incident\/transaction-thereby covering cross\/counter and connected cases particularly where a primary case is already pending before it.<\/p>\n

Similar amendments in Section 448<\/a> of the BNSS, 2023<\/a> (formerly Section 408<\/a> CrPC, 1973<\/a>) should also be introduced to correspondingly expand the Sessions Court’s powers in situations where a primary case has already arisen before it. This will facilitate the transfer of connected matters involving common factual matrices.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, to aid the Sessions Court in exercising this power, corresponding provisions that cast duties on: firstly, the Magistrate mandating him to enquire from the police\/other investigating authority and the parties, complainant and accused, and later certify in every committal order passed by him as to the existence or non-existence of any cross\/counter and connected case, based on his bona fide judicial assessment; secondly, the police\/other investigating authority to explicitly flag any case that appears to be in nature of cross\/counter and connected to the primary case, to the best of their knowledge. This will introduce greater diligence by authorities operating amid fluid factual settings and investigational discretion.<\/p>\n

The concerns and realities raised above seek more relevancy and legitimacy from the author’s personal experience and interaction with the Sessions Judges on this specific point of law, which have only affirmed the same. Although such practices may lack extensive statistical support, they are well-known to trial court practitioners. Additionally, they manifest in the delays and procedural confusion that stem from this anomaly. Some limited discourse around this subject is nonetheless available, a couple of which have also been referenced at relevant places in this article itself.<\/p>\n

Concluding remarks<\/h2>\n

To conclude, it can be said that while the silence in BNSS on committal of cross\/counter and connected cases is a gaping procedural gap, the proposed empowerment of the Sessions Court alongside corresponding duties upon the Magistrate and police\/investigating authorities, as discussed above, would add a much-needed supervisory layer to the process. This would uphold judicial consistency, procedural fairness, trial integrity, and coordinated adjudication of all cross, counter and connected cases, all while remaining faithful to the existing legal scheme. In a criminal adjudication, justice must be holistic, not compartmentalised, and must not only be done but also be seen to be done. This reform would help realign criminal adjudication with its foundational and justice-oriented purpose.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

*Advocate, New Delhi. Author can be reached at: sh.vinayak.2002@gmail.com<\/a>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

1.<\/a> Arms Act, 1959, S. 25 inter alia penalises an unauthorised possession of offensive weapons such as firearms and ammunitions.<\/a><\/p>\n

2.<\/a> Arms Act, 1959, S. 25.<\/a><\/p>\n

3.<\/a> Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, S. 23<\/a>; Evidence Act, 1872, S. 27.<\/a><\/p>\n

4.<\/a> A cross-case essentially refers to a case with a conflicting version of the same incident as the original case. They are interchangeably referred as a \u201ccounter-case\u201d.<\/p>\n

5.<\/a> Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, S. 448<\/a> (formerly Cr<\/span>iminal P<\/span>rocedure C<\/span>ode, 1973, S. 408<\/span><\/a>) does not encompass power to call for or direct committal of a case from the Magistrate.<\/p>\n

6.<\/a> Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, S. 232<\/a>; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 209.<\/a><\/p>\n

7.<\/a> Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, S. 362<\/a>; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 323.<\/a><\/p>\n

8.<\/a> Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023<\/a>; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.<\/a><\/p>\n

9.<\/a> Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, S. 21<\/a>; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 26.<\/a><\/p>\n

10.<\/a> Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 26.<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

11.<\/a> Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.<\/a><\/p>\n

12.<\/a> Penal Code, 1860.<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

13.<\/a> Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 323.<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

14.<\/a> Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sch. I.<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

15.<\/a> Asim Das<\/span> v. State of Tripura<\/span>, 2021 SCC OnLine Tri 121.<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

16.<\/a> Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, S. 210<\/a> (formerly Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 190<\/a>) and Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, S. 213<\/a> (formerly Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 193<\/a>) empowers the Magistrate to take cognizance of a case.<\/p>\n

17.<\/a> Goriparthi Krishtamma<\/span> v. Emperor<\/span>, 1929 SCC OnLine Mad 420.<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

18.<\/a> Krishna Pannadi, In re<\/span>, 1929 SCC OnLine Mad 166.<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

19.<\/a> Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

20.<\/a> (2001) 2 SCC 688.<\/a><\/p>\n

21.<\/a> Nathi Lal<\/span> v. State of U.P.<\/span>, 1990 Supp SCC 145.<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

22.<\/a> State of M.P.<\/span> v. Mishrilal<\/span>, (2003) 9 SCC 426.<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

23.<\/a> Fareedunissa Huma, \u201cCase and Counter Case to be Tried Together by Same Court Irrespective of Nature of Offence, Prosecutors Can’t be Same: Andhra Pradesh High Court\u201d, LiveLaw (livelaw.in, 29-4-2024).<\/p>\n

24.<\/a> Umashankar Tivari<\/span> v. State of U.P.<\/span>, 2019 SCC OnLine All 496.<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

25.<\/a> S.P. Srivastava, Higher Judicial Service (HJS), \u201cTrial of Cross Cases: Issues and Challenges\u201d, National Judicial Academy.<\/p>\n

26.<\/a> Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Ss. 241-247<\/a>; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss. 218-224.<\/a><\/p>\n

27.<\/a> Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, S. 448<\/a>; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 408.<\/a><\/p>\n

28.<\/a> (2001) 2 SCC 688.<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

29.<\/a> 2014 SCC OnLine Mad 12989.<\/a><\/p>\n

30.<\/a> Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 407<\/a>; Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, S. 447.<\/a><\/p>\n

31.<\/a> Manas Kumar Pal, \u201cJoint Trial of Cases and Counter Cases: Need to Amend Criminal Procedure Code\u201d, Cri LJ 1993.<\/p>\n

32.<\/a> Vedaant Lakhera, \u201cPolicing with Prejudice: Report Finds Caste and Religious Bias among Law Enforcers\u201d, Frontline<\/span> (frontline.thehindu.com, 5-4-2025).<\/p>\n

33.<\/a> Chitrakshi Jain, Aditya Ranjan and Jigar Parmar, \u201cIndia’s Public Prosecutors aren’t Independent. This is How It can be Fixed\u201d, ThePrint (theprint.in, 23-2-2022).<\/p>\n

34.<\/a> Venkatrayan<\/span><\/a> case<\/span>, 2014 SCC OnLine Mad 12989.<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

35.<\/a> Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, S. 213<\/a>; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 193.<\/a><\/p>\n

36.<\/a> Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, S. 251<\/a>; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 228.<\/a><\/p>\n

37.<\/a> Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

38.<\/a> (2001) 2 SCC 688.<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

39.<\/a> 1980 Supp SCC 499.<\/a><\/p>\n

40.<\/a> Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, S. 511<\/a>; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 465.<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Vinayak Sharma*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":356116,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[42503,1191],"tags":[68448,49853,11941,50592,41382,70940],"class_list":["post-356111","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-legal-analysis","category-op-ed","tag-bnss","tag-criminal-procedure-code-1973","tag-crpc","tag-evidence-act-1872","tag-legal-framework","tag-nagarik-suraksha-sanhita-2023"],"yoast_head":"\nBridging the Procedural Gap under the BNSS: Rethinking Sessions Courts' Powers to Direct Committal in Cross, Counter and Connected Cases | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Examine the fate of a trial pending before a Court of Sessions (hereinafter, \u201cSessions Court\u201d) for charges of murder and attempt to murder.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/08\/bridging-the-procedural-gap-under-the-bnss-rethinking-sessions-courts-powers-to-direct-committal-in-cross-counter-and-connected-cases\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bridging the Procedural Gap under the BNSS: Rethinking Sessions Courts' Powers to Direct Committal in Cross, Counter and Connected Cases\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Examine the fate of a trial pending before a Court of Sessions (hereinafter, \u201cSessions Court\u201d) for charges of murder and attempt to murder.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/08\/bridging-the-procedural-gap-under-the-bnss-rethinking-sessions-courts-powers-to-direct-committal-in-cross-counter-and-connected-cases\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-08-08T09:30:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-08-08T09:38:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/OPED-250.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Bridging the Procedural Gap under the BNSS: Rethinking Sessions Courts' Powers to Direct Committal in Cross, Counter and Connected Cases\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/08\\\/bridging-the-procedural-gap-under-the-bnss-rethinking-sessions-courts-powers-to-direct-committal-in-cross-counter-and-connected-cases\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/08\\\/bridging-the-procedural-gap-under-the-bnss-rethinking-sessions-courts-powers-to-direct-committal-in-cross-counter-and-connected-cases\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Editor\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"headline\":\"Bridging the Procedural Gap under the BNSS: Rethinking Sessions Courts’ Powers to Direct Committal in Cross, Counter and Connected Cases\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-08-08T09:30:44+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-08-08T09:38:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/08\\\/bridging-the-procedural-gap-under-the-bnss-rethinking-sessions-courts-powers-to-direct-committal-in-cross-counter-and-connected-cases\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":3815,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/08\\\/bridging-the-procedural-gap-under-the-bnss-rethinking-sessions-courts-powers-to-direct-committal-in-cross-counter-and-connected-cases\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/OPED-250.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"BNSS\",\"Criminal Procedure Code 1973\",\"crpc\",\"Evidence Act 1872\",\"Legal Framework\",\"Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Op Eds\",\"OP. ED.\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/08\\\/bridging-the-procedural-gap-under-the-bnss-rethinking-sessions-courts-powers-to-direct-committal-in-cross-counter-and-connected-cases\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/08\\\/bridging-the-procedural-gap-under-the-bnss-rethinking-sessions-courts-powers-to-direct-committal-in-cross-counter-and-connected-cases\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/08\\\/bridging-the-procedural-gap-under-the-bnss-rethinking-sessions-courts-powers-to-direct-committal-in-cross-counter-and-connected-cases\\\/\",\"name\":\"Bridging the Procedural Gap under the BNSS: Rethinking Sessions Courts' Powers to Direct Committal in Cross, Counter and Connected Cases | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/08\\\/bridging-the-procedural-gap-under-the-bnss-rethinking-sessions-courts-powers-to-direct-committal-in-cross-counter-and-connected-cases\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/08\\\/bridging-the-procedural-gap-under-the-bnss-rethinking-sessions-courts-powers-to-direct-committal-in-cross-counter-and-connected-cases\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/OPED-250.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-08-08T09:30:44+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-08-08T09:38:32+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Examine the fate of a trial pending before a Court of Sessions (hereinafter, \u201cSessions Court\u201d) for charges of murder and attempt to murder.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/08\\\/bridging-the-procedural-gap-under-the-bnss-rethinking-sessions-courts-powers-to-direct-committal-in-cross-counter-and-connected-cases\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/08\\\/bridging-the-procedural-gap-under-the-bnss-rethinking-sessions-courts-powers-to-direct-committal-in-cross-counter-and-connected-cases\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/08\\\/bridging-the-procedural-gap-under-the-bnss-rethinking-sessions-courts-powers-to-direct-committal-in-cross-counter-and-connected-cases\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/OPED-250.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/OPED-250.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Bridging the Procedural Gap under the BNSS\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/08\\\/bridging-the-procedural-gap-under-the-bnss-rethinking-sessions-courts-powers-to-direct-committal-in-cross-counter-and-connected-cases\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bridging the Procedural Gap under the BNSS: Rethinking Sessions Courts’ Powers to Direct Committal in Cross, Counter and Connected Cases\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/editor_4\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bridging the Procedural Gap under the BNSS: Rethinking Sessions Courts' Powers to Direct Committal in Cross, Counter and Connected Cases | SCC Times","description":"Examine the fate of a trial pending before a Court of Sessions (hereinafter, \u201cSessions Court\u201d) for charges of murder and attempt to murder.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/08\/bridging-the-procedural-gap-under-the-bnss-rethinking-sessions-courts-powers-to-direct-committal-in-cross-counter-and-connected-cases\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bridging the Procedural Gap under the BNSS: Rethinking Sessions Courts' Powers to Direct Committal in Cross, Counter and Connected Cases","og_description":"Examine the fate of a trial pending before a Court of Sessions (hereinafter, \u201cSessions Court\u201d) for charges of murder and attempt to murder.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/08\/bridging-the-procedural-gap-under-the-bnss-rethinking-sessions-courts-powers-to-direct-committal-in-cross-counter-and-connected-cases\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-08-08T09:30:44+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-08-08T09:38:32+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/OPED-250.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Bridging the Procedural Gap under the BNSS: Rethinking Sessions Courts' Powers to Direct Committal in Cross, Counter and Connected Cases","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/08\/bridging-the-procedural-gap-under-the-bnss-rethinking-sessions-courts-powers-to-direct-committal-in-cross-counter-and-connected-cases\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/08\/bridging-the-procedural-gap-under-the-bnss-rethinking-sessions-courts-powers-to-direct-committal-in-cross-counter-and-connected-cases\/"},"author":{"name":"Editor","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"headline":"Bridging the Procedural Gap under the BNSS: Rethinking Sessions Courts’ Powers to Direct Committal in Cross, Counter and Connected Cases","datePublished":"2025-08-08T09:30:44+00:00","dateModified":"2025-08-08T09:38:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/08\/bridging-the-procedural-gap-under-the-bnss-rethinking-sessions-courts-powers-to-direct-committal-in-cross-counter-and-connected-cases\/"},"wordCount":3815,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/08\/bridging-the-procedural-gap-under-the-bnss-rethinking-sessions-courts-powers-to-direct-committal-in-cross-counter-and-connected-cases\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/OPED-250.webp","keywords":["BNSS","Criminal Procedure Code 1973","crpc","Evidence Act 1872","Legal Framework","Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023"],"articleSection":["Op Eds","OP. ED."],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/08\/bridging-the-procedural-gap-under-the-bnss-rethinking-sessions-courts-powers-to-direct-committal-in-cross-counter-and-connected-cases\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/08\/bridging-the-procedural-gap-under-the-bnss-rethinking-sessions-courts-powers-to-direct-committal-in-cross-counter-and-connected-cases\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/08\/bridging-the-procedural-gap-under-the-bnss-rethinking-sessions-courts-powers-to-direct-committal-in-cross-counter-and-connected-cases\/","name":"Bridging the Procedural Gap under the BNSS: Rethinking Sessions Courts' Powers to Direct Committal in Cross, Counter and Connected Cases | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/08\/bridging-the-procedural-gap-under-the-bnss-rethinking-sessions-courts-powers-to-direct-committal-in-cross-counter-and-connected-cases\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/08\/bridging-the-procedural-gap-under-the-bnss-rethinking-sessions-courts-powers-to-direct-committal-in-cross-counter-and-connected-cases\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/OPED-250.webp","datePublished":"2025-08-08T09:30:44+00:00","dateModified":"2025-08-08T09:38:32+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Examine the fate of a trial pending before a Court of Sessions (hereinafter, \u201cSessions Court\u201d) for charges of murder and attempt to murder.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/08\/bridging-the-procedural-gap-under-the-bnss-rethinking-sessions-courts-powers-to-direct-committal-in-cross-counter-and-connected-cases\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/08\/bridging-the-procedural-gap-under-the-bnss-rethinking-sessions-courts-powers-to-direct-committal-in-cross-counter-and-connected-cases\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/08\/bridging-the-procedural-gap-under-the-bnss-rethinking-sessions-courts-powers-to-direct-committal-in-cross-counter-and-connected-cases\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/OPED-250.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/OPED-250.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Bridging the Procedural Gap under the BNSS"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/08\/bridging-the-procedural-gap-under-the-bnss-rethinking-sessions-courts-powers-to-direct-committal-in-cross-counter-and-connected-cases\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bridging the Procedural Gap under the BNSS: Rethinking Sessions Courts’ Powers to Direct Committal in Cross, Counter and Connected Cases"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/OPED-250.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":275752,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/17\/death-row-convict-acquitted-defence-below-average-no-evidence-experienced-lawyers-to-be-appointed-as-legal-aid-counsels-supreme-court-legal-research-updates-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":356111,"position":0},"title":"‘Appoint experienced advocates as legal aid counsels’: SC acquits death row convict for want of evidence, finds defence ‘below-average’\u00a0","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"October 17, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"The Supreme Court was disappointed with the standard of investigation and the defence put up in a gruesome case relating to murder of wife and 4 children by the accused. The Court observed that while the accused was provided with a legal aid, the cross-examination of each and every witness\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-1-1-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-1-1-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-1-1-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-1-1-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-1-1-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":254217,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/15\/post-poll-murder\/","url_meta":{"origin":356111,"position":1},"title":"[Post Poll Murder] Ker HC | Rejection of bail would result in protraction of trial and indefinite detention; HC grants bail to Communist Party activists in post-poll murder case","author":"Editor","date":"September 15, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Kerala High Court: K.Haripal, J., granted bail to the accused involved in post poll murder case of a Muslim League member. The Bench opined, \u201cNo doubt, the allegations against the accused are very grave. Still, so long as the final report is laid, it is not in the interest of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":279738,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/16\/andhra-pradesh-high-court-acquits-a-man-accused-of-culpable-homicide-not-amounting-to-murder-set-aside-conviction-order-of-session-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":356111,"position":2},"title":"Andhra Pradesh High Court acquits a man accused of culpable homicide not amounting to murder; set aside conviction order of Session Court","author":"Editor","date":"December 16, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Without there being any evidence as to the presence of the accused in the house at the time of the death of the deceased, especially when the material witnesses turned hostile, convicting the accused basing on the assumptions and presumptions by the Sessions Court was erroneous.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Andhra Pradesh High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-491.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":226505,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/03\/04\/bom-hc-act-of-pouring-kerosene-on-the-person-of-deceased-and-setting-her-on-fire-amounts-to-culpable-homicide-amounting-to-murder\/","url_meta":{"origin":356111,"position":3},"title":"Bom HC | Act of pouring kerosene on the person of deceased and setting her on fire amounts to culpable homicide amounting to murder","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"March 4, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court:\u00a0A Division Bench of S.M. Gavhane and T.V. Nalawade, JJ., while partially allowing the appeal, held that, \"...with regard to offence under Section 498-A IPC, prosecuton has to prove that the accused in furtherance of their common intention caused cruelty within the meaning of cruelty given under explanation\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":66571,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/09\/05\/death-sentence-for-committing-rape-and-murder-of-8-year-old-girl-confirmed\/","url_meta":{"origin":356111,"position":4},"title":"Death Sentence for committing rape and murder of 8-year-old girl, confirmed","author":"Sucheta","date":"September 5, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Rajasthan High Court: Applying the principle of rarest of rare case, the Court upheld the decision of trial Court and confirmed death sentence awarded to the accused for committing rape and murder of 8-year-old girl. The present case was filed by the State of Rajasthan for confirmation of the capital\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":247672,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/26\/gangster-previously-prosecuted-in-15-cases-gets-bail-in-a-murder-case-supreme-court-sets-aside-allahabad-high-court-order\/","url_meta":{"origin":356111,"position":5},"title":"Gangster previously prosecuted in 15 cases gets bail in a murder case! Supreme Court sets aside Allahabad High Court order","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"April 26, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThere is no doubt that liberty is important, even that of a person charged with crime but it is important for the courts to recognise the potential threat to the life and liberty of victims\/witnesses, if such accused is released on bail.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/356111","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=356111"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/356111\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/356116"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=356111"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=356111"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=356111"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}