Trial Before a Court of Session — Procedure

Sections 248 to 260 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — previously Sections 225 to 237 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) — describe the entire trial before a Court of Session, from the prosecutor’s opening of the case to the judgment of acquittal or conviction. The sessions trial is the principal forum for serious offences in India: every offence punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment of more than seven years runs through it. The chapter is short and sequential; learnt as a procedural sequence, it organises every part of the trial.

The BNSS introduces three structural reforms to the sessions trial — a sixty-day window for discharge applications, a sixty-day timeline for framing of the charge, and a thirty-day (extendable to forty-five-day) deadline for delivery of judgment after the close of arguments. Each reform reflects the Standing Committee’s diagnosis that delay in trial was the chronic disease of the Indian criminal process.

Statutory anchor and scheme

The trial unfolds in eight stages, each tied to a specific section.

1. Section 248 BNSS (previously Section 225 CrPC) — trial to be conducted by a Public Prosecutor.
2. Section 249 BNSS (previously Section 226 CrPC) — the Public Prosecutor opens the case.
3. Section 250 BNSS (previously Section 227 CrPC) — discharge of the accused, with a new sixty-day application window.
4. Section 251 BNSS (previously Section 228 CrPC) — framing of charge, with a new sixty-day timeline.
5. Section 252 BNSS (previously Section 229 CrPC) — conviction on plea of guilty.
6. Sections 253 to 254 BNSS (previously Sections 230 to 231 CrPC) — date for and conduct of prosecution evidence.
7. Sections 255 to 257 BNSS (previously Sections 232 to 234 CrPC) — acquittal, entering upon defence, arguments.
8. Section 258 BNSS (previously Section 235 CrPC) — judgment of acquittal or conviction, with the new thirty-day delivery rule.

The chapter follows the framing of charge in the present Code of Criminal Procedure notes; the sessions trial is the next stop after the formal charge is read and explained.

The route to the Sessions Court

A case reaches the Sessions Court only by committal under Section 232 BNSS (previously Section 209 CrPC). The committing Magistrate has no power to discharge or to frame a charge; his sole task is to satisfy himself that the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Session and to commit the case. The BNSS makes the committal proceeding time-bound: it must be completed within ninety days from the date of taking cognizance, extendable up to one hundred eighty days for reasons recorded in writing.

Once committed, the case is assigned to a Sessions Judge. The committing Magistrate’s record — the chargesheet under Section 193 BNSS, the documents annexed, the statements under Section 180 BNSS, the Section 183 BNSS Magistrate-recorded statements — arrives with the case. The Sessions Judge proceeds on this record at the discharge / charge-framing stage. The architecture of cognizance and committal is mapped in the initiation of proceedings chapter.

Section 248 BNSS — the Public Prosecutor

Section 248 BNSS (previously Section 225 CrPC) requires every sessions trial to be conducted by a Public Prosecutor. The Public Prosecutor is not the State’s advocate in the usual private-litigation sense; he is an officer of the court whose duty is to present the case fairly, to disclose facts that affect the credibility of prosecution witnesses, and to assist the court in arriving at a just verdict (State of Bihar v. Ram Naresh Pandey, AIR 1957 SC 389). The Section 360 BNSS (previously Section 321 CrPC) power to withdraw a prosecution — the most consequential decision the Public Prosecutor takes — is exercised on his own assessment, subject to the court’s consent.

Section 249 BNSS — opening the case

Section 249 BNSS (previously Section 226 CrPC) requires the Public Prosecutor, when the accused appears or is brought before the court in pursuance of the committal, to open his case by describing the charge and stating by what evidence he proposes to prove the guilt of the accused. The BNSS adds the words ‘or under any other law for the time being in force’ to make explicit that opening covers special-statute offences as well.

The opening is not a mini-trial. The prosecutor is not weighing evidence or anticipating the defence; he is laying out the prosecution case in its broad outline so the court — and the accused — have a roadmap. The opening is followed by the first true judicial act — the discharge / charge-framing decision under Sections 250 to 251 BNSS.

Section 250 BNSS — discharge

Section 250 BNSS (previously Section 227 CrPC) is the discharge gate. After hearing the prosecutor’s opening and the submissions of the accused, the Sessions Judge considers the record of the case and the documents submitted with it. If he is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he discharges the accused and records his reasons. If he is of the contrary opinion, he proceeds to frame the charge under Section 251 BNSS.

The BNSS adds a new sub-section (1) to Section 250: the accused may prefer an application for discharge within a period of sixty days from the date of commencement of the case under Section 232. The amendment is designed to compress the discharge timeline; an application made after sixty days is not necessarily barred, but the timeline operates as a structural pressure on both bench and bar.

The doctrinal framework on discharge has been settled since the 1970s.

The standard of scrutiny. At the discharge stage, the judge does not weigh evidence as if conducting the trial. He sifts the materials to satisfy himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding (State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2018; Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, AIR 1979 SC 366). Strong suspicion that leads the judge to think that the accused has committed the offence is enough to frame the charge; mere suspicion that does not amount to grave suspicion warrants discharge.

Two equally possible views. Where, on the materials, two views are equally possible and the materials disclose only mere suspicion (not grave suspicion), the judge is within his right to discharge the accused (Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal; Vijayan v. State of Kerala, (2010) AIR SC 663). At the framing-of-charge stage, the same evenness would warrant a charge, not a discharge: the prosecution must be allowed to lead its evidence.

No defence material at this stage. The accused has the right to be heard but no right to produce his own documents to argue for discharge: State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568. The discharge inquiry is on the prosecution materials; defence evidence belongs to the trial proper.

Reasons must be recorded. The Section 250 obligation to record reasons is mandatory. A perfunctory order is liable to be set aside in criminal revision under Section 442 BNSS or under the High Court’s Section 528 BNSS inherent power. There is no parallel obligation to record reasons when framing a charge under Section 251 (Om Wati v. State, (2001) 4 SCC 333).

Section 251 BNSS — framing of charge

Section 251 BNSS (previously Section 228 CrPC) is the affirmative side of the same coin. If the judge is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he frames the charge in writing. The BNSS adds two changes:

1. The charge must be framed within sixty days from the date of first hearing on charge.
2. The charge may be read and explained to the accused either physically or through audio-video electronic means.

The form of the charge is governed by Sections 234 to 247 BNSS, treated in detail in the framing of charge chapter. The substantive content remains unchanged; the BNSS reform is on speed and remote presence.

If the offence is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the judge transfers the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate or any other Judicial Magistrate competent to try it. Sub-section (3) of Section 251 BNSS preserves this rerouting power.

Section 252 BNSS — plea of guilty

Section 252 BNSS (previously Section 229 CrPC) requires the judge, after framing the charge, to ask the accused whether he pleads guilty. If the accused pleads guilty, the judge may, in his discretion, convict him on the plea. The discretion is wide; courts are reluctant to convict on plea alone in serious sessions cases — the practice is to record the plea, explore whether the accused understands the consequences, and proceed to trial unless the plea is unequivocal and informed.

The plea-of-guilty conviction’s sentencing follows the regular sessions sentencing process under Section 258(2) BNSS, including the separate hearing on sentence required by Santa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1976 SC 2386 and Allauddin Mian v. State of Bihar, AIR 1989 SC 1456.

Sections 253 and 254 BNSS — prosecution evidence

Section 253 BNSS (previously Section 230 CrPC) requires the judge to fix a date for the examination of witnesses, when the accused does not plead guilty (or his plea is not accepted). The Public Prosecutor may apply for any process to compel the attendance of any witness or for the production of any document or thing.

Section 254 BNSS (previously Section 231 CrPC) governs the conduct of the prosecution evidence. The judge takes all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution; sub-section (2) gives the judge discretion to permit the cross-examination of any witness to be deferred until any other witness has been examined or to recall any witness for further cross-examination. The BNSS adds two innovations:

1. A new proviso to sub-section (1) permits the evidence of a witness to be recorded by audio-video electronic means.
2. A new sub-section (2) permits the deposition of any police officer or public servant to be taken through audio-video electronic means.

The audio-video provision is the BNSS’s response to the long-standing problem of vulnerable witnesses, distant witnesses, and witnesses whose physical attendance can be secured only at unusual cost. The mechanics are to be governed by State rules and court directions; the BNSS provides the umbrella authority. The detailed treatment of the BNSS digital reforms also intersects with the audio-video recording of search and seizure chapter.

Section 255 BNSS — acquittal at close of prosecution

Section 255 BNSS (previously Section 232 CrPC) is the no-case-to-answer gate. If, after taking the evidence for the prosecution, examining the accused, and hearing the prosecution and the defence on the point, the judge considers that there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence, he records an order of acquittal. The standard is no evidence — not insufficient evidence; if there is some evidence, the trial must proceed.

The provision is the sessions counterpart of the Section 271 BNSS warrant-trial acquittal-mid-trial gate. The principal MCQ pivot is the contrast: at this stage, ‘no evidence’ means the prosecution has failed to lead any legal evidence on a material ingredient. Where some evidence exists but is weak, the trial must continue and the question of credibility is decided at the end.

Section 256 BNSS — entering upon defence

Section 256 BNSS (previously Section 233 CrPC) lets the accused enter upon his defence and lead evidence. The accused may, in writing, apply to the judge for the issue of any process for compelling the attendance of any witness or for the production of any document; the judge issues such process unless he considers, for reasons recorded, that the application is made for vexation, delay, or defeating the ends of justice. The defence stage is the accused’s opportunity to challenge the prosecution case and to put forward an affirmative case if he wishes.

The Section 351 BNSS examination of the accused (previously Section 313 CrPC) is the structural bridge between prosecution evidence and defence evidence; the prosecution case — including the chargesheet content drawn from the police investigation — is put to the accused for explanation. The accused’s answers are not on oath but are part of the record; they may be used for or against him at the appropriate stage. The interplay with bail conditions during the defence stage is treated separately in the bail and bonds chapter.

Section 257 BNSS — arguments

Section 257 BNSS (previously Section 234 CrPC) requires the prosecutor to sum up his case after the close of the defence evidence; the accused or his advocate is entitled to reply. The BNSS textual change is ‘advocate’ for ‘pleader’. The argument stage is, in practice, where the case is won or lost; the appellate record turns on what was argued and what was conceded.

Section 258 BNSS — judgment

Section 258 BNSS (previously Section 235 CrPC) is the judgment section. After hearing arguments and points of law (if any), the judge gives a judgment in the case. The BNSS adds a new addition to sub-section (1) for time-bound disposal:

The thirty-day rule transforms judgment delivery from a matter of judicial discretion to a statutory deadline. Forty-five days is the outer limit; beyond that, the judge must record reasons. Sub-section (2) of Section 258 BNSS preserves the separate hearing on sentence: where the accused is convicted, the judge must hear the accused on the question of sentence before passing sentence according to law. The separate sentencing hearing is the procedural expression of Santa Singh and Allauddin Mian: it is a substantive right, not a formality, and its denial is a ground for remand for fresh sentencing.

For death sentence cases, the heightened sentencing inquiry from Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 applies. The judge must consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the ‘rarest of rare’ threshold, and the prisoner’s conduct, age, and rehabilitative prospects. The death sentence, if pronounced, must be confirmed by the High Court under Section 407 BNSS (previously Section 366 CrPC), treated in the death sentence confirmation chapter.

Section 259 BNSS — previous conviction

Section 259 BNSS (previously Section 236 CrPC) handles the case where the accused is alleged to have a previous conviction relevant to the trial — for example, where enhanced punishment under a recidivism provision is sought. The previous conviction is not put to the accused at the framing-of-charge stage; it is put after the conviction on the substantive charge has been recorded, and only if the prosecution then asks for the enhanced punishment. The procedure prevents the prejudice that would otherwise flow from the trial court knowing of the previous conviction at the start of the trial.

Trial of an absconding co-accused

Where some accused appear and others abscond, the trial may proceed against those who appear, with the case against the absconders being kept on the docket. The proclamation procedure under Sections 84 to 86 BNSS may be invoked against the absconders. The BNSS adds a new innovation in Sections 356 and 357 BNSS — the trial in absentia of proclaimed offenders — treated separately in the trial in absentia chapter. Until the new regime is fully operationalised, the customary practice of separating trials of absconders from those who appear continues to govern.

Sessions sentencing — the architecture

The sentencing decision in a sessions trial has its own architecture. The judge must consider:

1. The maximum punishment prescribed by the substantive section.
2. The minimum mandatory punishment, where prescribed.
3. Aggravating circumstances (cruelty, planning, victim characteristics).
4. Mitigating circumstances (age, mental state, family responsibilities, prospect of reformation).
5. The accused’s previous conduct, including previous convictions where alleged under Section 259 BNSS.
6. The probation considerations under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and Section 401 BNSS (previously Section 360 CrPC).

The procedural mechanics — the form of the judgment, the recording of points for determination, the sentencing reasons — are governed by Sections 392 to 407 BNSS (previously Sections 353 to 365 CrPC), treated in the judgment form and contents chapter.

Common reversible errors in sessions trials

Three patterns recur and merit specific attention.

Discharge without reasons. Section 250 BNSS requires reasons. A discharge order that merely says ‘there is no sufficient ground for proceeding’ without engagement with the materials is reversible (State of Karnataka v. Khaja, (1982) 3 SCC 456). The same standard does not apply to a Section 251 charge-framing order; the contrast is calibrated — reasons are required when the trial is being shut down, not when it is being initiated.

Section 351 BNSS examination not done or done perfunctorily. The examination of the accused is mandatory; its omission, or its conduct in a perfunctory manner that does not put the prosecution case to the accused for explanation, is a substantive defect. In serious cases, omission is fatal; in less serious cases, it may be cured by remand for re-examination.

No separate sentencing hearing. Section 258(2) BNSS requires a separate hearing on the question of sentence. Santa Singh read this as a substantive right; Allauddin Mian made it imperative in capital cases. A conviction followed immediately by sentencing without a separate hearing is liable to be remanded for fresh sentencing.

BNSS comparison — what changed

The substantive procedural architecture is unchanged. The BNSS additions are calibrated reforms:

1. Section 250 BNSS — sixty-day window for discharge applications.
2. Section 251 BNSS — sixty-day timeline for framing of charge; audio-video electronic means for reading the charge.
3. Section 254 BNSS — audio-video electronic means for evidence; deposition of police officers and public servants by audio-video.
4. Section 258 BNSS — thirty-day (extendable to forty-five-day) deadline for delivery of judgment.

The case law on Sections 225 to 237 CrPC carries forward without amendment to Sections 248 to 260 BNSS — Ramesh Singh, Prafulla Kumar Samal, L. Muniswamy, Debendra Nath Padhi, Dilawar Balu Kurane, Santa Singh, Allauddin Mian, Bachan Singh, Joseph Shine, Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368 — all good law.

Exam-angle takeaways

Five points exam-setters use without fail.

1. Sessions Court takes cognizance only on committal. Direct private complaints to the Sessions Court are not maintainable.
2. Discharge requires reasons; charge does not. The asymmetry is statutory.
3. The discharge test is ‘not sufficient ground for proceeding’. Strong suspicion warrants charge; mere suspicion warrants discharge.
4. Section 351 BNSS examination is mandatory. Omission is a substantive defect, not a technicality.
5. BNSS innovation — thirty-day judgment deadline, extendable to forty-five days. The first time the Code prescribes a deadline for delivery of judgment.

The sessions trial chapter is the trial chapter of the Indian criminal process — every other trial chapter (warrant, summons, summary) borrows its structure. A long-form mains answer should walk through the eight-stage procedural arc, highlight the BNSS time limits, and finish with the sentencing architecture under Section 258(2). A prelims MCQ will pivot on the discharge / charge contrast, the Section 255 acquittal at close of prosecution, the new BNSS timelines, or the separate sentencing hearing requirement. The companion procedural piece — the appellate review of sessions verdicts — is set out in the appeals in criminal cases chapter.