BNSS 2023 reshapes criminal procedure in India. Here’s how post-acquittal remedies differ between full trials and preliminary stage acquittals.
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has ushered in procedural transformation—yet the interpretation of acquittals continues to rely on core principles of justice established over decades.
BNSS 2023 and Its Impact on Criminal Adjudication
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, replaced the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973, aiming to modernize India’s criminal justice process. It introduced digitization, faster trials, and citizen-centric reforms. However, post-acquittal remedies—particularly the distinction between acquittals after a full-fledged trial and those at a preliminary stage—remain an area of evolving judicial scrutiny.
Legal observers note that while the BNSS simplifies procedures, it preserves the core doctrines of presumption of innocence and finality of acquittal, pillars essential to fair criminal adjudication.
Understanding the Two Types of Acquittal
Under Indian criminal law, an acquittal can occur either:
- After a full-fledged trial, where evidence is examined, witnesses are cross-examined, and guilt is adjudicated on merits.
- At a preliminary stage, where proceedings are halted before trial—for example, under Sections 248 and 272 BNSS (formerly Sections 232 and 258 CrPC)—when the court finds no sufficient ground to proceed or the prosecution fails to establish a prima facie case.
Both acquittals lead to the accused’s release, but their legal implications differ sharply—particularly regarding appeals, revisions, and the principle of autrefois acquit (double jeopardy).
Full-Fledged Trial Acquittals: Finality and Protection
When acquittal follows a complete trial, it carries presumptive finality. The prosecution cannot reopen the case unless new and compelling evidence surfaces, or a higher court allows appeal under limited circumstances.
Section 420 of BNSS (akin to Section 378 of CrPC) empowers the State Government or complainant to appeal against acquittal. However, courts exercise this power cautiously. The Supreme Court, in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007), reaffirmed that an acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence and should not be disturbed unless manifestly perverse.
This protection is embedded in Article 20(2) of the Constitution, which guards against double jeopardy—ensuring that a person acquitted after due process cannot be retried for the same offence.
Preliminary Stage Acquittals: Limited Finality and Reopenings
Preliminary stage acquittals, on the other hand, often arise from procedural dismissals, such as lack of evidence at the cognizance stage, failure to issue process, or withdrawal of complaint. These do not carry the same weight as acquittals after trial.
The BNSS, like the CrPC, allows limited re-initiation of proceedings in such cases. For instance, under Section 273 BNSS (corresponding to Section 300(5) CrPC), a person discharged or acquitted at the initial stage may face retrial if the earlier order was made without examining the merits.
Courts have recognized that these early-stage acquittals do not bar fresh proceedings if fresh facts or evidence emerge, since no adjudication on guilt or innocence has occurred.
Judicial Precedents and Emerging Trends
Indian jurisprudence has consistently drawn a clear line between the two categories. In State of Rajasthan v. Hat Singh (2003) and Mahesh Chand v. B. Janardhan Reddy (2003), the Supreme Court clarified that a discharge or preliminary acquittal does not amount to a final determination of guilt, allowing for subsequent prosecution under exceptional circumstances.
The BNSS framework retains these principles but aims to ensure that such discretion is exercised transparently, backed by digital recordkeeping and reasoned orders accessible to both parties.
President D.B. Binu of the Ernakulam District Commission, in a recent legal discussion, noted that “procedural modernization must not blur substantive safeguards.” His observation aligns with the judiciary’s emphasis that even procedural reforms like the BNSS must uphold due process and fairness in criminal trials.
Appeal and Revision Mechanisms Under BNSS
Under the BNSS, Sections 417–428 establish a structured appellate framework. Appeals from acquittals continue to lie before higher courts—Sessions, High Court, or the Supreme Court—depending on the authority that delivered the order.
At the same time, revisional jurisdiction under Section 456 BNSS ensures that higher courts can correct jurisdictional errors or gross miscarriages of justice, even in acquittal cases.
This dual mechanism balances two competing concerns—finality for the acquitted and accountability for wrongful acquittals.
Conclusion: Continuity Amid Change
The BNSS, while signaling a modern era for India’s criminal procedure, maintains the traditional equilibrium between individual liberty and societal justice. Full-fledged trial acquittals retain near-absolute finality, safeguarding against double jeopardy. Preliminary acquittals, however, remain subject to revival under lawful exceptions.
Ultimately, the reform’s success depends not merely on statutory changes but on judicial interpretation and ethical enforcement—principles central to India’s evolving criminal justice narrative.
For deeper insights and legal developments, visit The Legal Observer or explore our News Section for case analyses and updates.
You can also follow us on YouTube for discussions on the BNSS and key judgments.
