CRPC ASSIGNMENT ID-220062

THE WEST BENGAL NATIONAL

UNIVERSITY
OF JURIDICAL SCIENCES

CRPC ASSIGNMENT MONSOON

SEMESTER 2021

BATCH OF 2025
ID NUMBER: 220062
CRPC ASSIGNMENT ID-220062

SUBMITTED BY:
SUPERVISED BY:
UTSAV MANDAL SURYA
KANTA BALADHIKARI
Contents
INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................4
TYPES OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM...................................................................................4
 Adversary system or Accusatory system-..............................................................................4
 Inquisitorial system-................................................................................................................4
GENERAL OVERVIEW................................................................................................................5
Adversary system-...........................................................................................................................5
Inquisitorial system-........................................................................................................................5
CIVIL AND COMMON LAW COUNTRIES...................................................................................6
THE COMPARISON..........................................................................................................................6
I. Impact of precedents-..............................................................................................................6
II. Investigation procedure-.........................................................................................................7
III. The examination phase-...........................................................................................................7
IV. The trial phase-........................................................................................................................7
V. The role of judge and counsel-................................................................................................7
VI. Evidence-..................................................................................................................................7
VII. The victim’s role-..................................................................................................................8
VIII. The Court Structure-...........................................................................................................8
TRIAL IN INDIA (A COMMON LAW COUNTRY)......................................................................8
STEP 1-.............................................................................................................................................8
FRAMING OF THE CHARGES...................................................................................................8
STEP 2-.............................................................................................................................................9
RECORDING OF THE EVIDENCES OF THE PROSECUTION.............................................9
STEP 3-.............................................................................................................................................9
THE STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED.....................................................................................9
STEP 4-.............................................................................................................................................9
THE EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY THE DEFENCE...................................................................9
CRPC ASSIGNMENT ID-220062

STEP 5-.............................................................................................................................................9
CLOSING AND FINAL ARGUMNETS.......................................................................................9
STEP 6-.............................................................................................................................................9
JUDGEMENT.................................................................................................................................9
TRIAL IN FRANCE (A CIVIL LAW COUNTRY).........................................................................9
STEP 1............................................................................................................................................10
ARRAINGNMENT.......................................................................................................................10
STEP 2............................................................................................................................................10
BAIL HEARING...........................................................................................................................10
STEP 3............................................................................................................................................10
PRELIMINARY INQUIRY AND TRIAL...................................................................................10
STEP 4............................................................................................................................................10
JUDGEMENT................................................................................................................................10
CRITICISM.......................................................................................................................................10
ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM...........................................................................................................10
INQUISITORIAL SYSTEM........................................................................................................11
CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................................11
BIBLIOGRAPHY..............................................................................................................................12

THE ABSTRACT
In this research project, I will elaborate on the trial procedures followed in the civil and the
common law countries, its differences, its advantages and disadvantages. The Criminal
Justice System is the process by which offenders are arrested, followed by Stages of
investigation to determine proof. After which charges are framed, a defense is raised, trials
conducted and sentencing rendered if found, guilty or acquitted if he is found innocent.
Inquisitorial systems are used primarily in countries with civil legal systems, such as France
and Italy, or legal systems based on Islamic law like Saudi Arabia, rather than in common
law systems where adversarial system is followed.
An inquisitorial system is a legal system in which the court, or a part of the court, is actively
involved in investigating the facts of the case. This is distinct from an adversarial system, in
which the role of the court is primarily that of an impartial referee between the prosecution
and the defense.
CRPC ASSIGNMENT ID-220062

Comparison Of Trial Procedure

Between Common and Civil law
countries
[Adversarial and Inquisitorial
systems]

INTRODUCTION
The Criminal Justice System is the process of arresting offenders, followed by stages of
inquiry to find proof. After that, charges are filed, a defence is formed, trials are held, and
sentences are bestowed if he is found guilty or acquitted if he is proven innocent. Offences
which are criminal in nature are often examined by exploring the facts and or situations,
circumstances, and contexts to show the individual's guilt. A comprehensive investigation is
carried out in a disciplined way, paying close attention to details, evaluating and analysing
material in order to reach a conclusion and prosecute the individual who has committed the
criminal act.
The trial before the honourable court is a judicial examination of the matters brought before a
jury or judge between the parties, whether they be of law or facts. Pieces of evidence are
evaluated by the judge in criminal trials to determine guilt. For the goal of determining the
outcome, the judge considers the law of the land, the facts brought before him, or the
legislation presented in the respective case.

TYPES OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

There are many various kinds of criminal justice systems throughout the world to protect and
sustain order and peace within their area of authority by developing a social uniform policy,
the law. Punishments can be either punitive or rehabilitative in character.
However, the most common and prevalent among all are
CRPC ASSIGNMENT ID-220062

 Adversary system or Accusatory system- “Adversary system

is the court system where a judge decides on a case argued by a prosecutor who is
suing the plaintiff and the defense attorney who defends their plaintiff. A jury has also
been used to decide such cases.’’1
 Inquisitorial system- “Proof taking used in civil law, whereby the judge
conducts the trial, determines what questions to ask, and defines the scope and extent
of the inquiry’’2

GENERAL OVERVIEW
When there is really nothing more than assessing an individual's guilt, there are numerous
techniques such as tossing a coin or rolling a dice, which is the simplest, or any other
technique or method in which the outcome is established only by luck and chance. Or, an
administrator can be assigned and all of the things for the determination. Nonetheless, there is
a certain set of procedures and systems that are followed3.
In a trial, evidence is presented and evaluated, and ultimately a conclusion or decision is
drawn. The main goal of a trial is to produce rational decisions within the confines of a trial
procedure. Various governments over the world have different systems in place to achieve
this goal.
The system of trial is a judicial assessment of the matters brought in court before a jury or
judge in between litigants and defendants, to get solved in accordance to laws and facts. Bits
of evidence and witnesses are reviewed by the judge in criminal trials to determine guilt. For
the goal of determining the end result, innocence or guilt, the judge considers the law of the
land, the facts presented before him, or the law put in the respective case.
Most nations across the world that utilise attorneys and judges in court have one of two
systems: adversarial or inquisitorial.

Adversary system-
In this method, two adept advocates go toe to toe. respective advocates indulge to   prepare
with the goal of persuading the court through compelling arguments. There really is no
equilibrium for this system; if one attorney is more competent, he may move the case in his
client’s favour4. The adversarial system's dominant assumption is that a struggle between the
counsels will expose the truth or reality without the involvement of the judge, who only
decides after hearing he counsels and decides in the favour of strong of strong supporting
arguments. Because of the efficacy and persuasiveness of the councils, the destiny of the
perpetrator is jeopardised in the adversarial system. As evidences are provided by the
advocate, they are able to conceal negative facts, which is deceptive in nature.
1
Black’s Law Dictionary 11th edition 2019
2
Black’s Law Dictionary 11th edition 2019
3
Deffains, Bruno, and Dominique Demougin. “The Inquisitorial and the Adversarial Procedure in a Criminal
Court Setting.” <i>Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE) / Zeitschrift Für Die Gesamte
Staatswissenschaft</i>, vol. 164, no. 1, 2008, pp. 31–43.
4
Bowcott, O., 2014. Inquisitorial system may be better for family and civil cases, says top judge. [online] the
Guardian
CRPC ASSIGNMENT ID-220062

Inquisitorial system-
Judges evaluate and express concerns in this system unlike adversarial systems where the
major part carried out by the counsels upon which the judge gives his or her judgement on the
basis of the strength and credibility of the arguments and evidence. In common law countries
like France, there are two types of magistrates: examining or investigating magistrates and
chief magistrates. The process's efficiency is tailored to the specific judge's capacity to be
thorough and fair. It’s all upon the judge and its skill, the more skill the more prudent
judgements unlike in adversarial systems where the more skilful the lawyer the more chance
of getting judgements in his client’s favour5. The inquisitorial system is designed to focus on
truth finding while minimising the danger.

CIVIL AND COMMON LAW COUNTRIES

Civil law countries are generally former French, Dutch, German, Spanish, or Portuguese
colonies or protectorates, covering much of Central and South America. The majority of
Central and Eastern European and East Asian nations likewise adhere to a civil law
framework6.

Whereas the Common Law is a British legacy inherited by the United States, Canada, and the
Commonwealth. The common law system emerged in Britain during the Norman Conquest,
through the medieval era, and through the Renaissance, as rulers solidified political authority
and integrated many of the country's judicial traditions7.

5
Adele, Justice, Comparative Analysis between Adversarial and Inquisitorial Legal Systems (November 25,
2017).
6
Block, Michael K., et al. “An Experimental Comparison of Adversarial versus Inquisitorial Procedural Regimes.”
<i>American Law and Economics Review</i>, vol. 2, no. 1, 2000, pp. 170–194.
 CRPC ASSIGNMENT ID-220062

THE COMPARISON

I. Impact of precedents- The adversarial system which is predominantly

followed in common law countries differ with the inquisitorial system followed by the
civil law countries on the concept of following precedents. the earlier or past
judgements and decisions given by the courts of higher hierarchy are given importance
and are regarded as having a binding effect whereas in the inquisitorial system,
precedents are not given much importance and doesn’t have any binding effect 8. The
judges or jurors make their own decisions based on the applicable legislation, which is
why the code of law is given the utmost importance.

II. Investigation procedure- In the adversarial system the parties of the

respective case, such as the police and the defence, are responsible for bringing and
gathering the evidence and related matters, but in the inquisitorial system, the
government officials gather the pieces of evidence, conduct the investigation
themselves, or request the police to do so. The police might be instructed about the
priorities by public prosecution services. Also, in some inquisitorial systems the judge
puts himself/herself in the shoes of an investigating officer and may conduct the
investigation procedure whereas it is just opposite in the case of adversarial system
where the judges just give their judgement upon the facts and evidences produced
before them.

III. The examination phase- In an adversarial system, there is nothing like

an independent examination, and the process or method of cross-examination is just
a portion of the trial.  However, in inquisitorial system, the examining judge is in
charge of interrogating and scrutinizing the witnesses and gathering the evidences of
a respective case.

IV. The trial phase- In the course of trial, the state must be represented by one
lawyer and the defendant must be represented by another before the adjudicator/judge.
Witnesses are cross-examined or re-examined, and the testimony in chief is taken.

7
Deffains, Bruno, and Dominique Demougin. “The Inquisitorial and the Adversarial Procedure in a Criminal
Court Setting.” <i>Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE) / Zeitschrift Für Die Gesamte
Staatswissenschaft</i>, vol. 164, no. 1, 2008, pp. 31–43.
8
Encyclopedia Britannica. 2014. inquisitorial procedure | law. [online]
 CRPC ASSIGNMENT ID-220062

While there is no cross-examination or re-examination of witnesses in the inquisitorial

system, witnesses are interrogated and confronted during the examining phase.

V. The role of judge and counsel-The judge makes the judgement after
ascertaining and affirming that the due process of law is obeyed in the court of law. In
the adversarial system, counsel offers evidence and questions witnesses9. However, In
the inquisitorial system, the judge is in charge of the courtroom, procedures,
questioning of witnesses, and evidence assessment in order to make a judgement or
arrive at a decision

VI. Evidence- In adversarial systems, there is a clear difference between admissible

and inadmissible evidences, its applicability and non-applicability in the court of law,
and the notion of hearsay testimony which is readily accepted if it is credible, but in
the inquisitorial system, the rules governing acceptance of evidences are more liberal
and easier. If a judge believes or finds a piece of evidence to be relevant, it is allowed.
There is no hearsay rule in many inquisitorial systems10.

VII. The victim’s role- The victim is not really a party in the adversarial system
since the case represents the state against the perpetrator. The victim has the status of a
party in the trial under the inquisitorial system.

VIII. The Court Structure- Since common law nations use the adversarial
system, courts have extensive adjudication powers, whereas civil law countries use the
inquisitorial system, which means specialized courts deal with constitutional law,
criminal law, administrative law, commercial law, and civil or private law.

9
The Adversarial System vs. The Inqisitorial System, Yan Yu, Nankai University, School of Law
10
Gary Goodpaster, On the Theory of American Adversary Criminal Trial, 78 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 118
(1987).
CRPC ASSIGNMENT ID-220062

TRIAL IN INDIA (A COMMON LAW COUNTRY)

In case of India, it has a well-established legislative, regulatory, and administrative structure

for the trail of criminal cases.
The Indian Penal Code is largely controlled by three Acts.

I. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.)

II. The Indian Penal Code, 1960 (IPC)
III. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA)
STEP 1-
FRAMING OF THE CHARGES
This is the very beginning of the whole procedure. When a case is brought before the court,
the court unveils significant allegations against the accused that have not been adequately
justified, and the court constructs the charge of accusation and begins with the trial.

STEP 2-
RECORDING OF THE EVIDENCES OF THE
PROSECUTION
As the accusations are framed, witnesses' testimonies are taken and then they are cross-
examined. This is referred to as examination in chief and cross-examination.

STEP 3-
THE STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED
Here the accused person is given a fair chance to explain any compromising facts or
circumstances in the case which may become very much relevant and important in the
context of the trail

STEP 4-
THE EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY THE DEFENCE
Here it’s all up to the wish of the accused person, he may present documents and relevant
evidences that are admissible in accordance of the Indian evidence act 1872, and those will be
CRPC ASSIGNMENT ID-220062

cross-examined by the prosecution. It is unnecessary since the prosecution has the burden of
proof and the producing of accused evidence is thus not a mandatory act.

STEP 5-
CLOSING AND FINAL ARGUMNETS
This is the trial's last stage. The prosecutor will summarise the prosecution case and will give
closing arguments, and the accused is asked to respond.

STEP 6-
JUDGEMENT
It’s the final and the last step. Following the completion of the prosecutor's and defence’s
final and concluding arguments, the judge renders his verdict or the judgement in the trial.

TRIAL IN FRANCE (A CIVIL LAW COUNTRY)

STEP 1
ARRAINGNMENT
The charges of the accused are read to the defendant during the arraignment, and the
defendant is asked to plead guilty or not. And if the accused accepts the guilty, the court will
either punish him on accordance to the norms of sentencing in their respective penal laws.
But when the accused pleads not guilty, the judge decides the next date of the hearing which
is known as the bail hearing or release hearing11.  

STEP 2
BAIL HEARING
The accused individual who is in detention at the time of the arraignment must be freed on
certain terms unless the counsel of the prosecution objects and   objectives should be met. If
the defendant does not abide by the terms, further charges may be brought against him.

11
Stuntz, William J. “Inequality and Adversarial Criminal Procedure: Comment.” <i>Journal of Institutional and
Theoretical Economics (JITE) / Zeitschrift Für Die Gesamte Staatswissenschaft</i>, vol. 164, no. 1, 2008, pp. 47–
51.
CRPC ASSIGNMENT ID-220062

STEP 3
PRELIMINARY INQUIRY AND TRIAL
Only once adequate evidence to bring the case to court is established can the trial begin. In
both instances, the prosecutor and defence counsel summon and question witnesses,
including the victim or victims, and offer evidence and arguments in support of their
respective positions12. When the evidence is determined to be inadequate during the
preliminary inquiry, the charges against the accused are dismissed and if the evidence is
found to be weak during the trial, the accused is acquitted. 

STEP 4
JUDGEMENT
After all necessary procedure if the accused is found guilty, the honourable court may impose
a punishment or seek a pre-sentencing report. Then the parole officer should produce and
prepare this report, in which the accused's behaviour in society will be discussed and
observed, and the victim may be apprehensive about the type and gravity of the offence.

CRITICISM
ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM
In the adversarial system, the lawyer is obligated to operate actively and honestly on behalf of
his client. Ardent and devoted advocacy entails the responsibility to seek out all positive
evidence, nullify, or eliminate any negative evidence, and fight for the most beneficial
reading of the law on behalf of his client. Here in this system the parties offer evidence and
thus occasionally some parties deliberately take a much longer time to present evidence
before the court. As the work of evidence collecting and presentation are entirely driven by
the parties, the decision maker or the judge will only hear the evidences that the parties wish
to offer and present before the court. It is often found that the concept of Individual rights
protection, as well as the assumption of innocence and the benefit of the doubt, can often
result in the release of a criminal from guilt. Parties with the intent to deceive can introduce
fraudulent witnesses in order to skew the facts. The Standards of necessitate advocacy and
client allegiance, hinders the pursuit of truth 13.  Also, the police may not always be able to
uncover enough evidence against the accused. sometimes the police also become helpless as a
lack of help from the accused person.  As a result of which, the case is eventually
gets dropped.

INQUISITORIAL SYSTEM
Here Both the inquiring magistrate and the judge have unrestricted ability to arrest and
adjudicate the matter which is indeed very crucial to a particular case in hand. As the
inquisitorial system the court is involved in the questioning and the fact finding which may

12
Goldstein, Abraham S. “Reflections on Two Models: Inquisitorial Themes in American Criminal Procedure.”
<i>Stanford Law Review</i>, vol. 26, no. 5, 1974, pp. 1009–1025.
13
Kim, Chulyoung. “Adversarial and Inquisitorial Procedures with Information Acquisition.” <i>Journal of Law,
Economics, &amp; Organization</i>, vol. 30, no. 4, 2014, pp. 767–803.,
CRPC ASSIGNMENT ID-220062

sometimes result in a prejudiced attitude towards the conduct. Here in this systems the
accused’s right to privacy also gets violated and misused frequently14. The respected
Prosecutors and police officers abuse or misuse their authority since they are subject to
distinct laws that govern their action and method of working. the Parties to the case are
unable to summon their own expert which makes it another disadvantageous side of this
system.

CONCLUSION
Although both adversarial and inquisitorial systems are critiqued, but as the credibility of the
judgements is called into question, the systems remain in place and followed in various
countries.
In an adversarial system, the defendant and the government (state) are the parties in a
criminal case, but in an inquisitorial system, the victim is also a party which according to me
is a beneficial characteristic of the adversarial system,
Fundamental adversary principles such as the assumption of innocence and confirmation of
culpability beyond reasonable doubt are great, because if a person is alleged to have
committed any offence, he is just only an accused, not a perpetrator or proved criminal, and
he should have actual rights and certain powers which are unfortunately turned down in an
inquisitorial system. Last bit no the least both the systems have their own, characteristics and
effectives, criticism but they both have the same goal in all towards the society.
It can be said that under the adversarial rule, the societal costs related to a given level of
justice are always lower. However, the inquisitorial rule may be preferable since it permits
the government to regulate all investigating procedures and associated costs. Under the
adversarial system, nevertheless, investigative expenses will be primarily restricted by
personal freedom and wealth of a rich individual, resulting in a reduced justice level,
increased financial costs, and potentially massive discrepancies15.
As the entire motivation is to resolve a case in favour of one of the parties, it is not really a
huge problem, but there is a suitable method developed step by step to accomplish the shared
goal of punishment for the criminal who has been found guilty after trial, and relief for the
victim, as well as to guarantee a proper and fair trial or hearing. Each systems have their very
own protocols, as well as perks and downsides.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
 Encyclopedia Britannica. 2014. inquisitorial procedure | law. [online] Available
at: https://www.britannica.com/topic/inquisitorial-procedure
14
Deffains, Bruno, and Dominique Demougin. “The Inquisitorial and the Adversarial Procedure in a Criminal
Court Setting.” <i>Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE) / Zeitschrift Für Die Gesamte
Staatswissenschaft</i>, vol. 164, no. 1, 2008, pp. 31–43. <i>JSTOR</i>,
15
Justice.govt.nz. 2015. Appendix B: a comparison of the inquisitorial and adversarial systems — Ministry of
Justice, New Zealand.
CRPC ASSIGNMENT ID-220062

 Bowcott, O., 2014. Inquisitorial system may be better for family and civil cases,
says top judge. [online] the Guardian. Available at:
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/mar/04/inquisitorial-system-family-civil-
cases-judge-lord-thomas
 Justice.govt.nz. 2015. Appendix B: a comparison of the inquisitorial and
adversarial systems — Ministry of Justice, New Zealand. [online] Available at:
http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/a/alternative-pre-
trial-and-trial-processes-for-child-witnesses-in-new-zealands-criminal-justice-
system/appendix-b-a-comparison-of-the-inquisitorial-and-adversarial-systems
 Gary Goodpaster, On the Theory of American Adversary Criminal Trial, 78 J.
Crim. L. & Criminology 118 (1987). Available at:
https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol78/iss1/3
 Kim, Chulyoung. “Adversarial and Inquisitorial Procedures with Information
Acquisition.” <i>Journal of Law, Economics, &amp; Organization</i>, vol. 30,
no. 4, 2014, pp. 767–803., www.jstor.org/stable/43774366.
 Deffains, Bruno, and Dominique Demougin. “The Inquisitorial and the
Adversarial Procedure in a Criminal Court Setting.” <i>Journal of Institutional
and Theoretical Economics (JITE) / Zeitschrift Für Die Gesamte
Staatswissenschaft</i>, vol. 164, no. 1, 2008, pp. 31–43. <i>JSTOR</i>,
www.jstor.org/stable/40752689.
 Block, Michael K., et al. “An Experimental Comparison of Adversarial versus
Inquisitorial Procedural Regimes.” <i>American Law and Economics
Review</i>, vol. 2, no. 1, 2000, pp. 170–194. <i>JSTOR</i>,
www.jstor.org/stable/42705365.
 Goldstein, Abraham S. “Reflections on Two Models: Inquisitorial Themes in
American Criminal Procedure.” <i>Stanford Law Review</i>, vol. 26, no. 5,
1974, pp. 1009–1025. <i>JSTOR</i>, www.jstor.org/stable/1227689.
 Stuntz, William J. “Inequality and Adversarial Criminal Procedure: Comment.”
<i>Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE) / Zeitschrift Für
Die Gesamte Staatswissenschaft</i>, vol. 164, no. 1, 2008, pp. 47–51.
<i>JSTOR</i>, www.jstor.org/stable/40752691.
 Adele, Justice, Comparative Analysis between Adversarial and Inquisitorial
Legal Systems (November 25, 2017). Available at SSRN:
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3077365 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3077365
 The Adversarial System vs. The Inqisitorial System, Yan Yu, Nankai University,
School of Law, https://www.cbl-international.com/docs/csu0714/the-adversarial-
vs-inquisitorial-system.pdf
 Kim, Chulyoung. “Adversarial and Inquisitorial Procedures with Information
Acquisition.” <i>Journal of Law, Economics, &amp; Organization</i>, vol. 30,
no. 4, 2014, pp. 767–803., www.jstor.org/stable/43774366. Accessed 26 Aug. 2021.
CRPC ASSIGNMENT ID-220062