How did the jury system function (the process) while it existed?
Shilpa
(Querist) 30 March 2012
This query is : Resolved
Hi,
I wanted to know how did the Jury System function (the process) while it existed.
I wanted to understand the actual process then. i.e. how was the jury seleceted?
did the minority communities have a jury consisting of people belonging to their community only.
If at all the accused felt that the jury was unfair what rights did he have?
Was the jury's decision/verdict always final? If not then who really decided whether the accused should be considered guilty.
During the actual proceeding did the Jury explain how they arrived at the verdict?
What were the powers and duties of the presiding judge?
If it was obvious that the Jury was biased and hence the case was referred to the next court then was there any process for any action against the Jury?
If you cannot answer all these questions, please do tell me a source where I can get answers to them or a source that will explain the Jury system in India while it lasted.
Deepak Nair
(Expert) 30 March 2012
Try in wikipedia.
Academic queries are ignored by the experts in this section. You can post this in Forum section for discussion.
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 30 March 2012
Academic Query,.
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
Adv.R.P.Chugh
(Expert) 30 March 2012
Dear Shilpa,
A Fact is said to be proved - when the judge is absolutely certain that it exists or considers it's existence so probable that a reasonable man, ought under the circumstances of the case, act on the supposition that it exists.
The Jury played out the part of reasonable man as given in 2nd part of the definition. They used to be ordinary people belonging to different walks of life. If those people on available material reached a conclusion that accused is guilty - then such a pronouncement was made, for it is really the societal imbalance that the crime caused is sought to be restored by punishment. The jury were the 'Society'.
The last jury trial in India was K.M.Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1962 SC) wherein the fallacies of jury system also cropped up when the jury decided to acquit nanavati whose guilt was clinched on the merits of the issue. It made apparent that a dispassionate judicial scrutiny cannot be expected from ordinary citizens, who are more often than not swayed by emotions and public zeal.
Shilpa
(Querist) 30 March 2012
Thanks a ton for the info Bharat. Wikipedia does not have the required info. Bharat, I have 2 final questions on the topic. I won't bother much. The questions are:
1. How was the Jury selected. For e.g. In the Nanavati case how was the jury selected?
2. What was the process really like? As in, after the Jury looked at the investigational details/evidence and delivered a verdict, if like in the Nanavati case it was obvious that the verdict was biased/unfair/unjust were the Jury in any way answerable to anybody by law?
R.K Nanda
(Expert) 30 March 2012
Purely academic query.
Ajay Bansal
(Expert) 30 March 2012
We are not here to teach Acaemic class, but to solve legal problems of public.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 30 March 2012
academic queries are not being replied by experts
Shilpa
(Querist) 31 March 2012
Okay. I'm new to the site. Did not really know what the experts answer and what they don't.
