Introduction of the three new criminal laws is one the landmarks in the criminal justice system. The laws aim to eradicate the remains of colonial mindset from our system which is evident by removal of words like 'law made by parliament of United Kingdom', ' London Gazette' , ' Respect to the representative of crown are repealed.

As enshrined in the criminal justice system and set as precedents in cases such as:

• Zahira Habibullah v/s State
• Mohammad Hussain v/s State
• Md. Ajmal Amir Kasab v/s State
• Nilabati Bahera v/s State
• Neelam Katara v/s State

And various other judgments- rights of victims, Accused and Witnesses are of utmost importance. The Laws aim to the achieve mandate and introduce applaudable provisions for the same. The legislature envisioned to protect the spirit of constitution.

The Legislative Intent

One of the changes that the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita brings in is the rearrangement of provisions. The IPC starts with the provisions of Chapters dealing with General Exceptions, Punishments, Abetment and Right to Private Defense. The Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita places the Offences against women prior to offences against the state. The Legislative intent to keep crime against women over crime against State. The Legislature intends to prioritize crime committed against women over the General Exceptions or Punishments or Crime committed against State. The Legislature aims to increase the conviction rate upto 90%. The gap between rate of person arrested and the rate of conviction is quite significant. Government aims to bridge the gap between the two.

Rajdroh or Rashtradroh

Sedition has been one of the most debated and disputed criminal laws. The provision of sedition has been misused time and again by the police and the arrested person face the under trial stage for a longer duration. The conviction rate is considerably low. Immanuel Kant said that" there is nothing more sacred in the wide world than the rights of others". They are inviolable. Jrene Khan rightly said that there is no excuse for Human Rights abuse, whether

in name of security or in name of abuse. Practice of torture on prisoners is highly predominant in India. S.G. Vombatkere vs Union of India 5 Supreme Court ordered a stay on "all existing proceedings of the offence of Sedition upon the Central Government and instigated the government to review the provision at earliest". The court's stay order was in consideration of the fact that the provision of Sedition is , was widely misused by the enforcement authorities.

Under IPC Section 124A the Law of Sedition applies to hatred, contempt or attempt to excite disaffection towards the government established by law in India, which implies that in lieu of cses involving seditious remarks for the threat of peace and security of country Sedition includes statements against the Government established by law. This implies that earlier Sedition included Rajdroh under its ambit which operated on the whims and fancies of the ruling government and other enforcement authorities.

Now under Section 154 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita only involves acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India. This implies that now seditious remarks does not include Rajdroh , only includes Rashtradroh as explained by the Home Minister in his speech introducing the three Criminal Laws in the parliament.

Terrorism- Defined
Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 defines terror acts as Any act done with an intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security, economic security or sovereignty of India or with intent to strike terror in any section of people in India or any foreign country.

In certain cases UAPA could not be applied which led to mercy to persons committing Acts of terror. Terrorism was not defined in Criminal Procedure Code which led to escape of criminals. Legislature has taken a significant step towards countering terrorism by defining terrorism in Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Even if the UAPA does not apply to particular case subject to the Act applies only to grave terror acts the offender has no resort to escape as Terrorism is now defined in BNS, 2023

Well thought Laws for Future Innovations
In the leading case of State of Maharashtra v/s Praful.B. Desai 3 the disputed fact that whether evidence through video conferencing is admissible court held in favour of admissibility of evidence through video conferencing considering the fact that the law makers at the time of drafting the Indian Evidence Act 1875 could not have envisioned the existence such technological developments. Court considered videoconferencing to be actual reality and not virtual reality. Also incase of R.M. Malkani v/s State of Maharashtra 4 court though held that tape record of a relevant conversation was a relevant fact and is admissible as evidence.

Though there were precedents to include video conferencing and other technological developments yet it does not cover all technological and artificial intelligence developments in the present scenario. The Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam mentions electronic and digital records including in its ambit a wide array of electronic records- server logs, e-mails, laptops, files stored in devices, location information, website content, messages and more.

By virtue of explanation made by Home Minister in his speech in parliament the laws will be applicable without any doubt to technological developments atleast upto 100 years and hopefully beyond.

Forensic Evidence And Videography
Section 176 of BNSS which is pari materia to Section 157 of CrPC has an additional sub section 3 which adds on two important features. Firstly, to provide more protection to the victim and to ensure transparency mandates recording of statement of victim in rape cases by way of audio- video means. Secondly the sub- section introduces mandatory visit of forensic experts in crime scene to collect forensic evidence for offence punishable with 7 years or more, to ensure credibility of information.

Section 184 of BNSS which is pari material to Section 164A of CrPC which deals with medical examination of victim of rape. Due to delay in report of Forensic Science Experts there was a delay in trial. Section 184 replaces the word 'without any delay' with 'within seven days'.

D.K. Basu the Torch Bearer
D.K. Basu is landmark judgment hoisting the flag to protect the rights of arrested person. Though there have been certain amendments under Section 41 to ensure the enforceability of guidelines issued by the apex court. Under Section 37 of the BNSS introduces appointment of a designated police officer by the State Government in every State and district level not below the rank of Assistant Police Sub- inspector of Police who will be responsible for maintaining the information of the arrested person and display the same in any manner including digital means in every police station and district headquarters.

Defining the bail and the bond
In the case of Moti Ram v/s State of Madhya Pradesh1 , Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer decided case, court defined bail as –'Bail covers both release on one's own bond with or without sureties'. Bail or bail was not defined in CrPC which was a matter dispute in certain cases like the case of Moti Ram- "whether a millionaire and a mason can be treated equally". Bail is an integral part of criminal justice system as " Bail is rule Jail is exception"

Bail and Bail bond has been defined under Section 2(1)(b), Section 2(1)(d), Section 2(1)(e) of Bharatiya Nayaya Suraksha Sanhita.

Victim has a SAY

Section 360 of BNSS is pari materia to Section 321 of CrPC. Earlier there was no say of victims in case of withdrawal of prosecution but now but now prosecution cannot be withdrawn without hearing the prosection.

Introducing the new

Crime Against women and children
BNS introduces a separate Chapter to include crime against women and children:

• Introducing the TWO - Mob Lynching and Snatching
• Section 304(1) of BNS defines snatching, which is an offence separate from theft.
• Section 103(2) introduces the definition of mob-lynching.
• Section 111(1) takes inspiration from the UAPA and includes 'cyber crime having severe consequences.'
• Section 69 penalizes sexual intercourse by way of deceitful means.
• Introduction of Gang Rape as an offence.

Police is Accountable
Filling of FIR the indigent process for the police to start with the investigation worked on the discretion of police . As held in the case of Lalita Kumari v/s State1 the apex court clearly directed that police is bound to register the FIR and if the Officer incharge of the police station denies to do so the informant has a right to approach the Superintendant of Police who either himself or through his sub- ordinate officers direct registration of FIR and investigation. The informant also has right to approach the court in case of failure of above authorities. Such omission of police officers will be considered as contempt and is punishable. The right to registration of FIR is not only the right of victim but also of the accused.

Despite steps taken towards mandatory registration of FIR, registration of FIR is denied on the grounds of area. Though Section 154 of CrPC impliedly stated the provision of Zero FIR, the legislature has introduced under Section 173 of BNSS Zero FIR by expressly mentioning 'irrespective of the area where the offence is committed'.

The insertion of directions issued by the constitutional bench in the case of Lalita Kumari v/s State1 under Section 173 and Section 174 which include preliminary inquiry to be s punishable with 3 years or more but less than 7 years. Alternative remedies to approach the Superintendant of Police in case of non registration of FIR by the officer incharge of Police and right to approach the magistrate if no remedy obtain even after intervention of Superintendent of Police.

Untangling the investigation knot:
At what stage does the power of court to order investigation under Section 156(3) of CrPC ends which was a major reason of dispute in case of Reddy v/s Reddy2 and Veenubhai Haribhai Malviya case3. Section 193 of BNSS solves the issue by clarifying that power of court as under Section 156(3) can not only be used at the stage of pre or post cognizance but also at the stage of trial.

The police shall within the period of 90 days inform the victim or the informant of the progress of investigation by any means including electronic communication.

Investigation must be completed within two months of rape under the BNSS, 2023 and some offences under the POCSO, 2012. Offences under the POCSO, 2012 have been added for the first time.

Analyzing the Change: Conclusion
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday demanded that Centre must clarify its stance on non-consensual sexual offences against LGBTQIA+ persons and men under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). LGBTQIA+ community from an integral part of the society and their hardships and rights are equally important. Same Sex marriage and sexual offences are to be analyzed.

• Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. (2013) 14 S.C.R. 713
• Venkata Reddy v. Pethi Reddy AIR 1963 SC 992
• Veenubhai Haribhai Malviya v. State of Gujarat, (2000) 1 SCC 16 (India)
• Dr. Krishna Murari Yadav, The Criminal Procedure 1973 (2024)

Despite the liberal view that the law makers claim to have taken in drafting the new criminal laws marital rape still remains unchecked. Consent is of utmost importance and non consensual sex has to be denied and punished. Just because he is your husband does not give him consent to deprive a woman of her dignity. Marriage does not give authority to non consensual sex. No timely registration of FIR in recent Kolkata murder case including negligible progress in investigation which was also reprimanded by the apex court raise concern whether the change is actually changing the quality and efficacy of criminal justice.

Despite a number of significant changes in the new laws the other side of the coin depicts whether the new laws were actually required or the aim could have been achieved by certain amendments to the previous laws. The reshuffling of provisions and not well defined/ clarified new provisions create ambiguity.

Registration of FIR still remains the discretion of the officer in charge of police station, as what country needs in not just provisions but implementation. The plight of common people still remains intact.

As the three new criminal laws commence to be the part of our criminal justice system what we as citizens look forward to is justice. Issues being addressed and provisions made for the public good utilized for the same. Women safety ,one of the major concerns of the country still remains on paper as fruit of justice for rape victims and their family members still remains bitter. We do have provisions but do lack implementation. An ocean of pending cases crying for justice washes away the brilliance of introduced provisions.

May it Manipur, Delhi or Kolkata the horrific cries should not go unheard. Despite old laws covering in its ambit the offences that happened in Manipur and Kolkata what we can't see is justice. What we as citizen aspire for is reduction in crime rates and can't really say that introduction of new provisions will prove to be a game changer. Despite all the remarkable provisions introduced the question remains- Are the lessons from the road travelled well learned...... Where the path ahead would lead to? References:

1. Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. (2013) 14 S.C.R. 713
2. Moti Ram & Ors. V. State of M.P AIR 1978 Supreme Court 1594
3. State of Maharashtra v/s Prafulla .B. Desai AIR 2003 Supreme Court 2053
4. R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1973 Supreme Court 157
5. S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India is (2022) 7 SCC 433
6. Zahira Habibullah v.State AIR 2004 Supreme Court 3114
7.  Mohammad Hussain v. The State 1960CRILJ1549
8. Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2012 Supreme Court 3565
9. Smt. Nilabati Behera Alias Lalit Behera V. State Of Orissa And Ors AIR 1993 Supreme Court 1960
10. Mrs. Neelam Katara v. Union Of India, ILR(2003) II Del 377