Fact Finding System and Rights of Accused in India

Abstract

India has adversarial criminal justice system. The well recognized fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence are presumption of innocence and right to silence of the accused, burden of proof on the Prosecution and the right to fair trial. The criminal jurisprudence has given a wider area to the accused. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused is always on the prosecution and in case of any doubt; the accused would get the benefit of acquittal. Any confession made by the accused before the Police officer is not admissible and cannot be made use of during the trial of the case. The statement of the accused recorded by the police can be used as provided under Section 27 of the Evidence Act to the limited extent that led to the discovery of any fact. So, it is advisable that even if you commit any crime, it is suggested that you should confess everything to the police officer and then deny the same in front of magistrate. Dont you think that it is the best way to escape from the guilt?Rights of accused, in law, the rights and privileges of a person accused of a crime, guaranteeing him a fair trial. These rights were initially (generally from the 18th century on) confined primarily to the actual trial itself, but in the second half of the 20th century many countries began to extend them to the periods before and after the trial.
All legal systems provide, at least on paper, guarantees that insure certain basic rights of the accused. These include right to trial by jury (unless jury trial is waived), to representation by counsel (at least when he is accused of a serious crime), to present witnesses and evidence that will enable him to prove his innocence, and to confront (i.e., cross-examine) his accusers, as well as freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures and freedom from double jeopardy.