This article is written by Lavish Sharma, from the Institute of Law, Nirma University. This article draws a comparison between the trial procedures of the french and the Indian courts.

Introduction  

The criminal justice structure encompasses both the interdependent aspects of the trial, as well as the specific phases of the trials. In this phase, a detailed review of the trial method of India and France is being carried out. The concept of the criminal justice system, the structure between the two dominant criminal justice structures of the country, i.e. the adversarial system and the inquisitorial method, is being discussed. Both structures are extensively contrasted and papers evaluated. The efficiency of decisions made in the various structures is also measured and criticized; criticism of both structures is discussed. The method is limited under all schemes, but the purpose of each is the avoidance and deterrence of crime.

Criminal justice system

The Criminal Justice System is the mechanism by which the defendant is charged, accompanied by an inquiry to assess the facts in which the allegations are made, the appeal is presented, the hearings are held and the sentence is deemed whether proven guilty or found innocent.

Criminal offences are typically prosecuted by reviewing the evidence and/or events, circumstances, cases, to show the individual’s guilt. A detailed inquiry is carried out routinely, holding time to the facts of the moment, examining and scrutinizing the knowledge to justify the conviction of the person performing the criminal offence. The proceedings against the person shall be assessed by the facts gathered and the recourse shall be used to challenge or react to the investigation of the criminal offence. The court shall be a judicial examiner of the disputes between the sides, whether civil or real, before a jury or a judge. To assess the legitimacy of the judicial case, the facts shall be reviewed by the court. The judge shall take into consideration the law of the country, the evidence brought before him or the statute placed out in the case to decide the result.

Around the globe, there are several various forms of criminal justice structures intended to preserve and sustain harmony and stability within their control by establishing a societal code of ethics, the statute. Punishment varies from a disciplinary or rehabilitative aspect. There are two primary legal mechanisms in place:

• Adversarial system
• Inquisitorial system

Adversarial method

According to Black’s law dictionary, “Adversarial system is a legal structure where a judge rules on a lawsuit initiated by a lawyer who sues the complainant and the defence counsel who protects the complainant. The jury is often required to assess these proceedings.” 

There is a head-to-head battle between two skilled advocates in this system. They are practising to compel the judge through plausible arguments. When the prosecutor is more eligible to push the lawsuit, there is no justification for that. The predominant expectation of the network of adversaries is that the fight between the attorneys would expose the facts without any direct intervention by the court.

Inquisitorial method

According to Black’s law dictionary, the inquisitorial procedure is “Evidence of the application of criminal law under which the judge performs specific functions in the court like, deciding what questions to pose and establishing the purpose and nature of the inquiry.

Judges review and answer concerns in this framework. Throughout France, the judge and chief prosecutor are being investigated. The success of the review relies on the willingness of each judge to be rigorous and honest.

Comparing inquisitorial and adversarial systems

The life of the accused party is at stake in the adversarial system regardless of the strength and persuasiveness of the committees. Proponents are viewed as facts so that they may conceal negative details, which is deceptive. This can contribute to the arrest of the innocent, more focus is put on the rights of the complainant, and less importance is put on the rights of the complainant. The Inquisitorial process is designed to concentrate on the quest for facts without danger.

1. In the adversarial framework, previous rulings by higher courts are known to have a cumulative impact, whereas, in the inquisitorial method, precedents are not granted as much importance. Judges or juries use the applicable laws separately and give priority to the code of law.
2. In the adversarial method, the actors, e.g. the police and the prosecution, have to supply information, whereas, in the inquisitorial framework, the government authorities (PPs) gather proof, can perform an inquiry themselves or may order the police to do so. The PPs will tell the police of the goals. A judge can perform an investigation in some inquisitorial structures. Conversely, judges of the adversarial framework may not play a part in the inquiry.
3. This is nothing but an impartial review in the leader of the adversarial process, so cross-examination is just part of the court. The questioning of testimony and the gathering of evidence shall be carried out by the investigating judge of inquisitorial regimes.
4. In an adversarial method, a counsel for the prosecution and another working on behalf of the defendant is expected to testify before the adjudicator. And the proof, in particular, shall be removed and the witnesses shall be cross-examined or re-examined. Whereas, the archive of testimony in the inquisitorial method is now in the investigation process, as there is no cross-examination and re-examination of the witnesses, however, the witnesses are examined and confronted.
5. The judge must ensure that the due process of law is observed in the trial and that the verdict is made. The prosecutor shall present proof and challenge witnesses in the adversarial method. Whereas, under the inquisitorial system, the judge (or jury) guides the trial, the trials and the questioning of the suspects, as well as the examination of the facts under order to make a verdict.
6. There is a clear categorization between admissible and inadmissible facts in the adversarial method, so hearing testimony becomes more readily accessible because it is accurate. The regulations on admissibility are more lenient under the inquisitorial method. If the judge determines the specific proof is appropriate, it is agreed. There is no such law in other inquisitorial structures.
7. The criminal retains the right to a free hearing and self-incrimination under both the systems.
8. Under the adversarial method, the victim is not a witness to the court in which the prosecution is made against the criminal on behalf of the Court. Under the inquisitorial system, the accused is a witness to the court.
9. The adversarial method is usually practised in common law countries, judges have broad authority to adjudicate and, the inquisitorial framework is pursued in civil law countries, there are separate judges concerned with statutory law, criminal law, regulatory law, corporate law and personal or private law.

Christopher E. Smith on this comparison

There are various ways of determining a person’s guilt,  such as tossing a coin, which is the easiest or some other process through which the outcome arrives by chance. Otherwise, an authority can be assigned to keep all the elements on the list. There is, indeed, a common selection of techniques, a variety of processes.

Presentation and review of the facts shall take effect throughout the court and the judgment shall be made. The jury shall be performed to make correct conclusions in the light of the court process. For this goal, various nations have specific policies. Many nations that employ attorneys and judges in legal cases can be split into either of two systems: opponent or inquisitorial. All bodies of the sides participate in the adversary framework, while judges take an important role in the inquiry and review of the facts in the inquisitorial method. It’s not easy to know which program makes accurate judgments. Each program has its critics.

India

The basic features of the trials in the procedures alluded can be broken down into the following stages:

1. At the outset of the proceedings, as prosecution is put to the judge, the judge discloses substantial allegations against the complainant, which have not been adequately clarified and the court charges and continues with the jury.
2. Once the allegations are made, the statements of the witness shall be obtained, and they shall be investigated. That is named in-chief and cross-examination.
3. The accused is granted a fair chance to clarify the details and conditions of the trial.
4. If the person wishes to be willing to show them, they would be cross-examined by the court. There is no reason for that since the standard of evidence rests with the prosecutor.
5. The criminal argument is presented by the lawyer and the complainant is allowed to respond.
6. Following the end of the claims by the prosecution and the defence attorney, the judge offers his decision in the case.

France

According to French law, there is a presumption of innocence, as a person convicted of a crime is innocent unless proven guilty by a court. As a consequence, the convicted can be stripped of liberty in the process of judicial action even if other requirements are fulfilled. Typically, both offenders are released; they are held only in rare situations. During the Trial, the defendant must prove the crime without any reasonable doubt. At this point, any evidence you are called to provide will be critical.

The hearings of the Court typically take place in secret. In some cases involving sexual offences, the judge can agree to prosecute in the absence of the jury. The complainant is not required to appear in his defence or to seek witnesses.

Trial in France

The prosecutor shall read the allegations to the defendant, who pleads guilty or not guilty before the court. When the perpetrator pleads guilty, the court will then impose a penalty in compliance with the laws regulating the sentencing. If the accused pleads not guilty, the judges shall determine the date for the next point, e.g. Release hearing (also called bail meeting) or declaration or formal examination or trial. The person who is in detention at the time of the trial will be released under some terms unless the prosecutor has objected. And the target is expected to be fulfilled. Unless the victim refuses to cooperate, fresh sanctions can be levied.

If sufficient evidence is found to bring the case before the court, only the trial shall begin. First, to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to present a trial and, secondly, to prove that there is no reasonable doubt in both cases that the Prosecutor’s Office and the defence counsel have called and questioned witnesses, including the victim or the victim, and to present evidence with arguments in support of their respective cases. Unless the proof is proven to be inadequate at the start of the formal examination, the proceedings against the convicted will be withdrawn, and if the evidence is found to be deficient at the court, the convicted will be charged. If the accused is found guilty, the judge can impose a punishment or order a pre-sentencing study. This study will be written by the rehabilitation officer who may work with the actions of the accused in public and who might be worried about the victim’s understanding of the existence and severity of the crime.

Conclusion

Whether it is just a matter of determining a lawsuit in favour of any side, that is not a major deal at all, so a reasonable process is formed step by step to fulfil a specific goal, which is to prosecute the defendant, support the survivor and to guarantee a fair jury. These methods often have their processes, benefits and drawbacks. Both the Adversarial and the Inquisitorial systems are questioned.

In the adversarial system, the accused and the state are parties to a criminal case, whereas, in the inquisitorial system, along with the other two, the victim is also a party. I think this feature of the adversarial system is a good one. The fundamental rules of the adversarial method, such as the presumption of innocence and evidence of guilt without fair doubt, are fine since if a person is convicted of performing some offence, he or she is simply a victim, not a suspect or a convict, he or she will have protections which are withheld under an inquisitorial framework. With their detractors and functions, the two structures share the same purpose.

References

• http://tndalu.ac.in/pdf/MLSyllabus/thirdsem/CLA-Opt.Com.Crimin.pdf
• https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/28501/9/09_chapter2.pdf
• https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/144597/11/chapter%20vi.pdf
• http://14.139.60.114:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/155/5/The%20Need%20for%20Abridge%20Procedure.pdf
• https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3109&context=lalrev
• https://www.nyulawglobal.org/globalex/Comparative_Criminal_Procedure.html

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join: