Trial By Jury In India: Why It Failed And Its Historical Significance
- IJLLR Journal
- Sep 26
- 2 min read
Sudiksha Raman, PES University
ABSTRACT
“If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit”, a famous closing argument that was presented by defence attorney, Johnnie Cochran during the 1995 O. J. Simpson murder trial, convinced the jurors of the innocence of O. J. Simpson who was accused of the murders of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman. This was a landmark case in the United States of America that garnered public attention and exposed the discrepancy between the public belief and the legal verdict given by the jurors. This case represents the fracture in the justice system and is often cited for the jurors’ oversight and bias, favouring the suspect for his African American roots. The O. J. Simpson case parallels the famous K M Nanavati trial in India, that persuaded the public and the jurors to render a verdict of ‘not guilty’ despite the conclusive evidence presented by the prosecution. This disparity of law defeats the provisions that provide for an objective view based solely on facts and evidence.
This paper aims to expose the inconsistency of trial by jury and why it ultimately failed in India. It is imperative to analyse how morality and prejudices can affect verdicts and whether such preconceived notions of the jury cause injury to the judicial role. Such verdicts of the jury that obscure the lines of law and morality is a cause for study. The intent of this study is to examine the famous case of K M Nanavati vs State of Maharashtra, 1961, which depicted the inadequacy of the jury. This paper also studies the case that serves as a precedent of the Nanavati case which is Abdul Rahim vs King Emperor, 1946, where the judge overturned a misdirected verdict of the jury. This paper shall discuss the aftermath of the Nanavati case and delve into the last case of trial by jury in India, State vs Prakash Ch. De and Anr, 1976 that rightfully ended the jury system in India. This paper also discusses the influence of media on the jury with reference to the Nanavati trial and the disputed verdict given by the jury.
