Stages of a Criminal Trial in India under BNSS 2026

Last verified: June 2026

Picture a single working morning in a district sessions court somewhere in India, sometime in 2026. Two criminal matters sit back to back on the same cause list. The first is an old file: the FIR was registered in 2023, and it crawls forward under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The second was registered in late 2024, so it runs under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Same judge. Same courtroom. Two procedural codes before lunch. To follow that second matter, you need to know the stages of a criminal trial in India under BNSS, because almost every section number the court calls out has changed.

That split is not a glitch. It’s the law working exactly as designed.

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 came into force on 1 July 2024, retiring the CrPC after more than fifty years. But a new code doesn’t wipe the slate. Cases that began under the old law continue under the old law, while new FIRs travel down the new track. So for the first time in independent India, every trial court runs two procedural regimes side by side, and it will keep doing so for years, until the old docket clears. The reform did three things at once: it renumbered nearly every familiar stage, it kept the underlying sequence largely intact, and it bolted on statutory deadlines the CrPC never had.

Here’s the thing about that renumbering. The stages a litigant or a junior advocate already half-knows, FIR, charge sheet, cognizance, framing of charge, evidence, judgment, appeal, are all still there. They just moved house. Framing of charge in a sessions case used to live at Section 228 CrPC; now it sits at Section 251 BNSS, and it carries a 60-day clock that simply did not exist before. Multiply that across forty-odd provisions and you understand why a practitioner with twenty years of muscle memory has to re-map the whole sequence before drafting a single application.

And the people who feel this most are not the senior partners. They’re the litigant’s family asking the most natural question in the world, “which code applies to us, and what happens next?” They’re the junior advocate, two years into practice, who has to sound confident in front of a magistrate while quietly re-checking section numbers. They’re the judiciary aspirant whose syllabus switched to BNSS overnight. Every one of them needs the same thing: a clean, accurate map of the sequence, with the right section behind each step.

The single fact that resolves most of the confusion is the FIR date. Before 1 July 2024, CrPC. On or after, BNSS. Everything downstream of that threshold is the stage sequence this guide lays out. And the advocates who learn that sequence cold right now, while the field is still re-tooling, are the ones picking up the criminal briefs that older lawyers are nervous to touch.

From the first information report to the final appeal, here is the full stage sequence: the BNSS section behind each step, the three trial tracks that decide which procedure applies, and the new timelines that, for the first time, put a clock on Indian criminal justice.

The stages of a criminal trial in India under BNSS run from FIR to appeal in this order: (1) FIR under Sec 173, (2) investigation, (3) police report or charge sheet under Sec 193, (4) cognizance by the Magistrate under Sec 210, (5) supply of documents and committal, (6) framing of charge, (7) prosecution evidence, (8) statement of the accused under Sec 351, (9) defence evidence, (10) final arguments, (11) judgment under Sec 392, and (12) appeal.

1. FIR under Sec 173 BNSS
2. Investigation by the police
3. Police report or charge sheet under Sec 193
4. Cognizance by the Magistrate under Sec 210
5. Supply of documents to the accused under Sec 230
6. Committal to the Court of Session (sessions-triable cases) under Sec 232
7. Framing of charge (or stating the substance of accusation)
8. Prosecution evidence and examination of witnesses
9. Statement of the accused under Sec 351
10. Defence evidence
11. Final arguments
12. Judgment, sentence, and then appeal

That list is the skeleton. The rest of this guide puts flesh on it: which of the three trial tracks your case falls into, where the new deadlines bite, and what each stage actually means for the accused, the victim, and the lawyer in the room.

What is BNSS, and which code applies to my case? The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) on 1 July 2024. It is one of three new criminal codes, alongside the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS, which replaced the IPC) and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA, which replaced the Evidence Act). The threshold test is the FIR date: registered before 1 July 2024, CrPC applies; on or after that date, BNSS applies, under the BNSS savings clause in Sec 531. Last verified: June 2026.

What are the stages of a criminal trial in India under BNSS?

If you’ve ever watched a criminal case from the gallery, it can look like organised chaos: dates, adjournments, files moving across a table. Underneath that, though, there is a fixed sequence. A criminal case in India moves through three broad phases, and the stages of a criminal trial in India under BNSS sit in a defined order from the FIR to the appeal. Knowing where your matter sits in that order is the difference between feeling lost and knowing exactly what comes next.

So what are the stages, plainly? Under Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, a case opens with the First Information Report. Then comes investigation, the police report or charge sheet under Sec 193, cognizance by the Magistrate under Sec 210, supply of documents to the accused under Sec 230, and, in serious cases, committal to the Court of Session. Only then does the trial proper begin: framing of charge, prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Sec 351, defence evidence, final arguments, and judgment under Sec 392. After judgment comes the appeal. That’s the twelve-step spine, and the hero flowchart for this guide tracks it top to bottom.

The full stage sequence at a glance

Think of the sequence as a relay. Each stage hands off to the next, and each has a BNSS section behind it: FIR (Sec 173), investigation (Secs 174 to 187), charge sheet (Sec 193), cognizance (Sec 210), supply of documents (Sec 230), framing of charge (Sec 251 in a sessions case), evidence and the Sec 351 statement, then judgment (Sec 392) and appeal. The section numbers are new under BNSS; the underlying logic of “investigate, accuse, try, decide, appeal” is as old as criminal justice itself.

Pre-trial, trial, and post-trial: the three phases

Group the twelve stages into three phases and the map gets easier to hold. The pre-trial phase is everything from the FIR through cognizance and committal, the part run mostly by the police and the Magistrate before any evidence is led. The trial phase is the contest itself: charge, evidence from both sides, the accused’s statement, and arguments. The post-trial phase is judgment, sentence, and appeal. Most litigants assume “trial” covers the whole thing; in law, the trial is only the middle phase.

Inquiry, investigation and trial: three different things

A common source of confusion, and a frequent exam question, is the difference between inquiry, investigation, and trial. Investigation is what the police do: gather evidence, examine witnesses, arrest, and file a report. Inquiry is a proceeding before a Magistrate or court that is not a trial, for example, the steps a Magistrate takes before committing a case to sessions. Trial is the formal stage that begins after charge (or after the substance of accusation is stated) and ends in acquittal or conviction. Why does the distinction matter? Because the rights and powers at each phase are different, and so are the timelines that now attach to them.

In practice, the most useful thing a reader can take from this overview is positioning. Once you can place your matter on the timeline, before charge sheet, after cognizance, mid-evidence, awaiting judgment, you know which provisions govern it and roughly what to expect next. The rest of this guide is the detail behind each box on that map.

How BNSS changed criminal procedure: the dual-code reality

Before we walk the stages, there’s a threshold question that trips up litigants and even some practitioners: does the CrPC or BNSS apply to my case? Get this wrong and you cite the wrong section in the wrong court. The answer turns on one date, and understanding why is the single most useful thing in this entire guide.

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on 1 July 2024. But the replacement was not retrospective. Cases that were already in the system on that date continue under the CrPC, while cases triggered by an FIR registered on or after 1 July 2024 run under BNSS. The practical upshot is a dual-code reality: for the next several years, trial courts will operate both regimes in parallel, file by file.

From CrPC 1973 to BNSS 2024 [HISTORICAL]

The CrPC governed Indian criminal procedure for more than five decades, and for much of that time the chronic complaint was the same: delay. Crores of cases pending, trials running for a decade, undertrials languishing without a verdict. That pressure built for years. In 2023, Parliament passed three new codes together, BNSS, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (replacing the IPC), and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (replacing the Evidence Act), and brought BNSS into force on 1 July 2024. It was the biggest overhaul of criminal procedure since the Republic began. The drafters kept the architecture the bar already knew and rebuilt the plumbing around deadlines and digitisation.

The savings clause: pre-July-2024 cases stay on CrPC

The legal mechanism that creates the dual-code reality is the savings clause in Sec 531 BNSS, which provides that any appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation pending on 1 July 2024 continues under the repealed CrPC. The working rule for any reader is simple: check the FIR date first, every single time. If the FIR predates 1 July 2024, reach for the CrPC section numbers; if it’s on or after, reach for BNSS. A litigant whose matter began in March 2024 is still, correctly, a CrPC case, even though the courtroom next door is running on BNSS.

What actually changed in the stages

So what changed beyond the numbering? Three things stand out. First, the renumbering itself, near-total, which is why old habits mislead. Second, the new mandatory timelines: deadlines on charge-sheet filing, on framing of charge, and on judgment that the CrPC never imposed (the full table sits further down, in the timelines section). Third, the digital first stage: e-FIR and Zero FIR are now codified, and there is provision for audio-video recording in parts of the process. The sequence of stages is familiar; the clock and the keyboard are new.

A question we hear often from junior advocates is whether they can simply “translate” a CrPC section into its BNSS twin and move on. Mostly yes, but not blindly. Some provisions did more than move: framing of charge picked up a 60-day limit, judgment picked up a 30-day limit, and the supply-of-documents stage picked up its own outer limit. Treat the mapping as a starting point, then check whether the BNSS version added a deadline. That single habit will keep you out of trouble.

The pitfall to avoid is assuming BNSS applies to everything just because it’s the current law. It doesn’t. The most common drafting error in this transition period is citing a BNSS section in a matter that is still, legally, a CrPC case. When in doubt, the FIR date is your anchor.

Pre-trial stage 1: FIR under Section 173 BNSS (Zero FIR and e-FIR)

Every criminal trial under BNSS starts with information reaching the police. For the litigant, this is often the most stressful moment: a wrong or delayed FIR can shape everything that follows. So it’s worth getting the first stage exactly right.

The First Information Report is governed by Sec 173 BNSS, which corresponds to Section 154 of the old CrPC. When information about a cognizable offence (an offence in which the police can investigate and arrest without prior court permission) reaches an officer in charge of a police station, it is recorded as the FIR. A copy must be given to the complainant free of cost. That free copy is not a courtesy; it’s a right, and it’s the document a lawyer will ask for first.

How an FIR is registered under Section 173

Registration under Sec 173 follows the cognizable/non-cognizable divide. For a cognizable offence, the officer must record the information and proceed; for a non-cognizable offence, the police generally need a Magistrate’s order before investigating. The FIR sets the case in motion, fixes the date that decides whether CrPC or BNSS governs, and starts the clock that later controls the charge-sheet deadline.

Zero FIR and e-FIR: the digital first stage

Here’s where BNSS modernised the very first step. Sec 173 now expressly accommodates the Zero FIR and the electronic FIR. A Zero FIR can be registered at any police station regardless of where the offence took place, so a victim is not turned away for being in the “wrong” jurisdiction; the FIR is later transferred to the station with territorial competence. The e-FIR allows information to be given electronically, with procedural steps for signing and verification. For survivors of serious offences, and for anyone far from the relevant station, this is a genuine change, not cosmetic. What was once a reason to delay reporting is now, at least on paper, no barrier at all.

Preliminary enquiry for 3 to 7 year offences

BNSS also introduced a preliminary-enquiry window for certain offences. For offences punishable with three to seven years’ imprisonment, the officer may, with permission, conduct a short preliminary enquiry to ascertain whether a prima facie case exists before registering the FIR. This sits in some tension with the long-standing line of authority requiring mandatory registration of an FIR for cognizable offences, and the courts are still working out how the two fit together. We’d flag this as an area to watch rather than treat as settled.

A common question from complainants is whether the police can refuse to register an FIR for a cognizable offence. As a rule, no, refusal to register a cognizable FIR is not lawful, and there are remedies (escalation to senior officers and to the Magistrate) when it happens. The preliminary-enquiry provision is a narrow, defined exception, not a general licence to delay. Knowing that distinction is what stops a genuine complaint from dying at the station door.

Pre-trial stage 2: investigation under Sections 174 to 187 and the charge-sheet clock

Once the FIR is registered, the case moves into the police’s hands. This stage decides how strong, or how thin, the eventual case will be, and it’s also where one of BNSS’s most consequential deadlines lives: the charge-sheet clock that, if missed, can hand the accused bail as of right.

Investigation is governed broadly by Sec 174 through Sec 187 BNSS, corresponding to Sections 156 to 173 of the CrPC. In this phase the police visit the scene, collect and seal evidence, record witness statements, conduct searches and seizures (with audio-video recording in defined situations under BNSS), arrest where warranted, and seek custody or remand. The investigating officer is building the spine of the prosecution case.

What the police do during investigation

The mechanics matter because they create rights for the accused at each step. Arrest triggers the right to be produced before a Magistrate; custody requires judicial authorisation; remand has its own limits. The investigation ends with the police filing a report under Sec 193, which either supports a prosecution or closes the matter. Everything the defence later challenges, the seizure, the statements, the chain of custody, traces back to what was done in this stage.

The 60/90-day charge-sheet deadline

This is the stage that contains the headline deadline. Under Sec 187(3) BNSS (the successor to Section 167 CrPC), the police must complete investigation and file the charge sheet within a fixed period: within 60 days for offences carrying lesser punishment and within 90 days for the gravest offences (those punishable with ten years or more, life imprisonment, or death). The clock does not run from the FIR; it runs from the date the accused is first remanded to custody by the Magistrate. What is not in doubt is the consequence of missing it.

Default bail when the deadline is missed [SECOND-ORDER]

If the police fail to file the charge sheet within the 60 or 90-day window, the accused becomes entitled to default bail, also called statutory bail. This is not a discretionary favour; it’s a right that arises by operation of law the moment the deadline passes and the accused applies before the charge sheet is filed. In practice, this means that if the police miss the 60/90-day deadline, the accused becomes entitled to default bail, and a litigant or junior advocate should be ready to move the moment the window closes. There’s a second-order effect worth naming: forensic-infrastructure gaps in some states make these deadlines slip, which is quietly pushing more default-bail litigation through the system, an area where an alert advocate adds real value.

Bail points before and during trial

Default bail is only one bail moment among several. Bail can be sought at several points before and during trial, depending on the offence, the stage, and the circumstances of the accused. The drafting of a clean, well-grounded bail application is a skill in itself, and getting it right at the first hearing often shapes the rest of the matter.

What experienced practitioners know is that the charge-sheet clock changes the rhythm of a defence. Under the old regime, delay sometimes favoured the prosecution; under BNSS, a missed deadline can convert delay into a defence advantage. The mistake we see most often is treating default bail as automatic in the sense of “the court will grant it on its own”. It isn’t, the accused (or counsel) must apply, and apply in the window. Miss that, and the right can be defeated once the charge sheet lands.

Pre-trial stage 3: charge sheet, cognizance, supply of documents and committal

The bridge from investigation into trial is where thin guides get sloppy, blurring four distinct sub-stages into one. They’re separate steps with separate sections, and confusing them (especially supply of documents with framing of charge) is one of the most common errors in the field. Let’s keep them apart.

Police report or charge sheet under Section 193

When investigation concludes, the police file their final report under Section 193 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the BNSS successor to Section 173 CrPC. If the evidence supports prosecution, the police file the charge sheet (police report) under Section 193; if it doesn’t, they file a closure or “no case” report, which is also a report on completion of investigation under Sec 193. The charge sheet lists the accused, the offences alleged, the witnesses, and the evidence relied on. It is the document around which the entire trial is built.

Cognizance by the Magistrate under Section 210

Filing a charge sheet does not, by itself, start a trial. A court must take cognizance, and that happens under Sec 210 BNSS, corresponding to Section 190 CrPC. Cognizance is the judicial act of applying the mind to the offence and deciding to proceed; it is taken of the offence, not the offender. A Magistrate can take cognizance on a police report, on a complaint, or on information received. Until cognizance is taken, there is no case before the court in the trial sense.

Supply of documents under Section 230

This is the sub-stage competitors most often mislabel. Under Sec 230 BNSS (corresponding to Sections 207 and 208 CrPC), the accused must be supplied with copies of the police report, the FIR, the statements, and the other documents the prosecution relies on. BNSS adds an outer time limit for this supply: the Magistrate must furnish the copies without delay, and in no case beyond 14 days from the date the accused is produced or appears. Worth flagging clearly: Sec 230 is supply of documents, not framing of charge. Some guides label this stage “framing of charges (Section 230)”, which is simply wrong, charge framing happens later, under a different section. The accused cannot meaningfully prepare a defence without these documents, which is why the timeline now matters.

Committal to the Court of Session under Section 232

For the gravest offences, those triable exclusively by a Court of Session, the Magistrate cannot try the case and must commit it. Committal is governed by Sec 232 BNSS (corresponding to Section 209 CrPC), and BNSS attaches a timeline to it as well: the Magistrate is to commit the case within 90 days of taking cognizance, a period extendable by up to a further 180 days for reasons recorded in writing. After committal, the case leaves the Magistrate and enters the sessions track, which is the deepest of the three trial routes. For warrant and summons cases tried by a Magistrate, there is no committal, the Magistrate tries the case directly.

A question litigants often ask is what happens between the charge sheet and the first real hearing. The honest answer is that these four steps, report, cognizance, supply of documents, and (where needed) committal, are exactly what happens, and each can take time. The pitfall is impatience misread as inaction: the case is moving even when nothing dramatic appears to be happening. Knowing the four sub-stages lets a reader see the gears turning.

The three trial tracks under BNSS: sessions, warrant and summons

Here is the question that decides almost everything about how your trial will look: which track is it on? Most readers assume “a criminal trial” is one thing. It isn’t. BNSS, like the CrPC before it, runs three different trial procedures, and the gravity of the offence decides which one applies. This is the single most important distinction in the whole guide, and the one thin competitors get most wrong.

Why three tracks? Because it would be wasteful, and unfair, to put a minor offence through the same elaborate machinery as a murder. So the procedure scales with the seriousness of the charge. That scaling decides one thing in particular: whether a formal charge is framed at all.

Why there are three tracks

The gravity of the offence sorts cases into sessions trials (the gravest offences, tried by a Court of Session), warrant-case trials by a Magistrate (serious offences, broadly those punishable with more than two years), and summons-case trials by a Magistrate (minor offences, those punishable with imprisonment for two years or less). Under the BNSS definitions in Sec 2, a warrant case is one relating to an offence punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment exceeding two years, and a summons case is any case that is not a warrant case. The heavier the potential punishment, the more elaborate the safeguards, and the more formal the charge stage.

The three-track comparison

The cleanest way to hold this is a side-by-side comparison, which the comparison infographic for this guide lays out in full. In a sessions trial (Chapter XIX, Secs 248 to 260), the case is tried by a Court of Session and a charge is formally framed under Sec 251. In a warrant-case trial by a Magistrate (Chapter XX, Secs 261 to 273), a charge is also framed, under Sec 263. In a summons-case trial (Chapter XXI, Secs 274 to 282), no formal charge is framed at all, the substance of the accusation is simply stated to the accused under Sec 274. That charge-vs-no-charge difference is the practical heart of the three-track system, and it determines which procedure, and which rights, apply.

Summary trial: a brief note

There is a fourth, narrowest route worth a single mention: the summary trial, under Chapter XXII, reserved for the pettiest offences. It compresses the procedure heavily and records evidence in abbreviated form to dispose of trivial matters quickly. It’s not a main track for most readers, but it exists, and a case can sometimes be tried summarily where the law permits.

A question aspirants ask constantly is how to tell, on the facts, which track a given offence falls into. The shortcut is the punishment: look up the offence in the BNS, check the maximum sentence, and the track usually follows from there (exclusively sessions-triable offences are listed; the rest sort by the two-year line into warrant and summons cases). The pitfall is assuming every trial frames a charge. It doesn’t, summons cases never do, and an advocate who expects a charge in a summons case is reading the wrong chapter.

Sessions trial procedure under BNSS (Sections 248 to 260)

The sessions trial is the deep end. It’s reserved for the gravest offences, murder, serious sexual offences, the matters where a life can turn on procedure, so the safeguards are at their most elaborate. If you understand the sessions track, the magistrate tracks are easier, because they’re lighter variations on the same theme.

A sessions trial runs through Chapter XIX, Sec 248 to Sec 260 BNSS, after the case has been committed to the Court of Session. The sequence is tightly choreographed, and BNSS added a clock to its most important early step.

Opening, discharge and framing of charge (Secs 249 to 251)

The trial opens with the prosecution describing its case under Sec 249 (corresponding to Section 226 CrPC). The defence then gets its first real shot: an application for discharge under Sec 250 (corresponding to Section 227 CrPC), arguing there isn’t enough to proceed. If the court rejects discharge and finds a prima facie case, it frames the charge under Sec 251 (corresponding to Section 228 CrPC). Here’s the new part: BNSS requires the charge to be framed within 60 days from the first date of hearing on charge, under Sec 251(1)(b), a statutory deadline the CrPC never had. “Framing of charge” simply means the court formally puts the specific accusation to the accused in writing: this offence, these particulars, do you plead guilty or claim trial?

What “framing of charge” means, and discharge vs acquittal

The standard the court applies at this stage is the source of endless confusion, so let’s be precise. At framing, the court is not deciding guilt; it’s deciding whether there is a prima facie case, a “grave suspicion” rather than proof. That standard comes from a well-known line of Supreme Court authority on charge and discharge, including Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4 and State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 39, and Indian courts have carried that jurisprudence forward from the CrPC into the BNSS provisions, a continuity recognised in Dr. Anand Rai v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2026 INSC 141. The distinction that follows is crucial: discharge happens before trial, when there’s no prima facie case to answer; acquittal happens after trial, when the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Same outcome for the accused (freedom), entirely different stage and standard.

Plea, evidence, defence, arguments and judgment (Secs 252 to 258)

Once the charge is framed and read, the accused pleads. A plea of guilty can lead to conviction on that plea (Secs 251(2) and 252). If the accused claims trial, the prosecution leads its evidence and examines its witnesses (Sec 254), with the court empowered to acquit if there’s no evidence at all (Sec 255). The accused then enters on the defence and may lead defence evidence (Sec 256), both sides make final arguments (Sec 257), and the court delivers judgment, followed by a hearing on sentence if there’s a conviction (Sec 258). Instead of running the full trial, the accused may instead opt for plea bargaining, a negotiated route to a reduced sentence governed by Chapter XXIII (Sec 289 to Sec 300 BNSS) and available for offences not punishable with death, life imprisonment, or more than seven years.

A question that comes up repeatedly is whether a discharge application is worth filing if the odds are long. The practical reality is that it often is, even an unsuccessful discharge argument forces the prosecution to show its prima facie hand early, which can sharpen the defence. The pitfall is leaving it too late: with the 60-day clock running, a discharge application drafted at the last minute risks being rushed, or being heard after the charge is already framed.

Warrant-case and summons-case trials by a Magistrate (Sections 261 to 282)

Not every case reaches a Court of Session. The large majority are tried by a Magistrate, and they split into two tracks with one defining difference: in a warrant case, a charge is framed; in a summons case, it is not. Miss that single distinction and you misread the entire procedure.

Warrant-case trial on a police report (Secs 261 to 266)

A warrant-case trial instituted on a police report runs through Sec 261 to Sec 266 BNSS. The Magistrate first checks compliance with the Sec 230 supply-of-documents requirement (Sec 261). The accused may apply for discharge, and BNSS gives that application a window: within 60 days of receiving the Sec 230 documents (Sec 262). If the case survives discharge, the Magistrate frames the charge within 60 days of the first hearing (Sec 263), again, a new BNSS deadline mirroring the sessions clock. A plea of guilty can lead to conviction (Sec 264); otherwise the prosecution leads evidence (Sec 265) and the defence follows (Sec 266). The structure deliberately echoes the sessions trial, lighter, but recognisably the same shape.

Warrant-case instituted otherwise than on a police report (Secs 267 to 268)

Where a warrant case begins on a private complaint rather than a police report, the procedure shifts slightly: the complainant’s evidence is led first, and the Magistrate may discharge the accused if no case is made out, under Secs 267 to 268 (corresponding to Sections 244 to 245 CrPC). The core safeguard, a charge framed only on a prima facie case, stays intact.

Summons-case trial (Secs 274 to 282): no charge framed

Now the contrast. In a summons-case trial under Secs 274 to 282, there is no formal charge. Instead, the substance of the accusation is stated to the accused under Sec 274 (corresponding to Section 251 CrPC), and the accused is asked to plead. A plea of guilty can lead to conviction (Sec 275), and in petty cases conviction can even follow a plea in absence (Sec 276). If the accused does not plead guilty, the Magistrate hears the prosecution and defence evidence (Sec 277) and then acquits or convicts (Sec 278). If the complainant doesn’t appear, or dies, the accused may be acquitted (Sec 279). Worth flagging plainly: a charge is not framed in a summons case, only the substance of the accusation is stated. Expecting a formal charge here is one of the most common procedural misunderstandings.

Summons vs warrant: which procedure applies

So how does a reader tell, at the start, whether a magistrate-tried case is a warrant case or a summons case? The same way as before: the punishment. Broadly, offences punishable with imprisonment exceeding two years are warrant cases (charge framed); those punishable with two years or less are summons cases (no charge). The comparison earlier in this guide lays the two side by side. A question practitioners raise is whether a summons case can ever be converted to a warrant procedure; the law allows a Magistrate, in defined circumstances, to switch to the warrant procedure where the interests of justice require it. The pitfall is procedural autopilot: applying warrant-case steps (like framing a charge) to a summons case, which can invite a challenge later.

The new mandatory BNSS timelines (charge sheet, charge, judgment)

If there’s one thing BNSS did that the CrPC never dared, it’s this: it put clocks on criminal justice. Deadlines on filing the charge sheet, on framing the charge, on supplying documents, on delivering judgment. For a system defined for decades by delay, this is the headline reform, and the single table below is the one most readers will want to bookmark.

The BNSS timelines table

Here are the new statutory deadlines, each tied to its section.

Within how many days must judgment be pronounced?

The deadline readers ask about most is the judgment clock. Under Sec 392(1), judgment in any criminal court of original jurisdiction must be pronounced not later than 45 days after the trial ends. In a sessions trial the position is tighter still: Sec 258(1) requires judgment within 30 days of the completion of arguments, extendable to 45 days for reasons recorded in writing. Under the CrPC, there was no such outer limit, judgment could, and often did, take far longer. On paper, this is one of the sharpest changes BNSS made to the back end of a trial.

Are these timelines mandatory or directory? [FUTURE]

Now the question that will define how much any of this actually matters: are the new timelines mandatory (a breach has legal consequences) or merely directory (a target the court should aim for)? The honest answer in 2026 is that it’s unsettled. Early signals suggest courts are beginning to interpret these provisions, and practitioners expect litigation specifically on whether, say, a judgment delivered beyond the 45-day window is thereby vitiated. We won’t predict the outcome. What we’ll say is that the mandatory-vs-directory line is the live issue to watch as BNSS jurisprudence builds.

A question litigants ask is whether they can do anything if a court blows past one of these deadlines. In practice, the strongest lever is the charge-sheet clock, because its consequence (default bail) is explicit. For the softer deadlines, the realistic remedy today is to press the timeline in submissions and on the record, while the law on consequences settles. The pitfall is assuming a missed judgment deadline automatically undoes the judgment; that’s exactly the open question, not a settled rule.

Statement of the accused under Section 351 BNSS

Cutting across all three tracks is a stage that aspirants love to test and litigants rarely understand: the moment the accused gets to speak directly to the court, unsworn, about the evidence against them. It applies whether the trial is sessions, warrant, or summons, which is why it deserves its own section.

What Section 351 is

The examination of the accused is governed by Sec 351 BNSS, corresponding to Section 313 CrPC. After the prosecution evidence is in, the court puts the incriminating circumstances to the accused and gives them a chance to explain. Three features define this stage. It is conducted without oath, so the accused cannot be prosecuted for perjury on these answers. The accused is not cross-examined on it. And, critically, the Sec 351 statement cannot be the sole basis of a conviction, it is an opportunity for explanation, not a substitute for proof.

Examination of witnesses: chief, cross and re-examination

The Sec 351 statement sits inside a larger evidence architecture worth understanding. Each witness is first examined-in-chief by the party calling them, then cross-examined by the opposing party (this is where the case is really tested), and then, if needed, re-examined by the original party to clarify points raised in cross. Cross-examination is not a courtesy; it’s a right, and the integrity of a criminal trial often turns on how rigorously it’s exercised. The order is the same across all three tracks, the difference between tracks is the charge stage, not the evidence stage.

Does the accused have to give evidence in defence?

A question that worries many accused persons is whether they must testify or lead defence evidence. The answer is no. The accused has a right to silence, and leading defence evidence is optional, the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt stays on the prosecution throughout. An accused can choose to lead defence evidence, or rely entirely on the gaps in the prosecution case exposed during cross-examination.

What experienced practitioners know is that the Sec 351 statement is a tactical moment, not a formality. A careless answer can supply the very link the prosecution was missing; a careful one can explain away a damaging circumstance. The mistake we see most often is treating it as a box-ticking exercise. It isn’t, what the accused says (or doesn’t say) here can quietly decide the case.

Judgment, sentencing, acquittal and conviction (Sections 392, 258)

After the arguments end, the case reaches its only point: the decision. Acquittal or conviction, and if conviction, what punishment. This stage is common to all three tracks, and BNSS attached its judgment clock right here.

Judgment under Section 392

Judgment is delivered under Sec 392 BNSS, corresponding to Section 353 CrPC. It must be pronounced in open court and be a reasoned decision, the court has to explain why it acquitted or convicted, not merely announce the result. And under Sec 392(1), it must be pronounced not later than 45 days after the trial ends; in a sessions trial Sec 258(1) sets the tighter 30-day default (extendable to 45 for reasons recorded), as the timelines table above shows. A reasoned, time-bound judgment is the formal end of the trial phase.

Acquittal or conviction, then a hearing on sentence

If the accused is acquitted, the matter ends at trial (subject to appeal). If convicted, the trial doesn’t simply stop, the court holds a separate hearing on the sentence before deciding the quantum of punishment. In a sessions trial this sits at Sec 258; the same logic of “convict first, then hear on sentence” runs through the magistrate tracks too. At sentencing, the court weighs the gravity of the offence, mitigating and aggravating factors, and statutory provisions on punishment. In a fit case the court may release a convict on probation of good conduct or after admonition under Sec 401 instead of passing sentence, and it may order the convict to pay compensation to the victim out of the fine, or otherwise, under Sec 395. The split between the conviction finding and the sentence hearing is a real safeguard: it gives the convicted person a defined chance to be heard on punishment.

Why trials still take years despite the new clocks

So if BNSS put clocks on everything, why do criminal trials in India still take years? The clocks govern specific steps, not the gaps between them. Adjournments, witness availability, overloaded court rolls, and uneven forensic and digital infrastructure still stretch the calendar between the timed stages. The new deadlines compress particular bottlenecks (charge framing, judgment after arguments), but they don’t, by themselves, dissolve systemic pendency. A realistic reader should expect BNSS to shorten certain stages while the overall journey, FIR to final judgment, remains a long one in contested matters.

A question litigants ask, understandably, is “how long will my case take?” There’s no honest single number, it depends on the track, the offence, the court’s docket, and whether the matter is contested. The pitfall is reading the BNSS timelines as a promise of a fast trial. They’re a meaningful structural improvement, not a guarantee, and managing a client’s expectations on duration is part of the job.

Appeals after a criminal trial under BNSS (Sections 413 to 435)

A trial is rarely the last word. Whether the verdict is conviction or acquittal, the losing side, and now, importantly, the victim, may have a right to appeal. BNSS carried this stage forward from the CrPC and sharpened the victim’s position in particular.

The general rule: no appeal unless provided (Sec 413)

The starting principle is restrictive. Under Sec 413 BNSS (corresponding to Section 372 CrPC), there is no appeal from a criminal court’s judgment except as provided by BNSS or another law in force. Appeals are creatures of statute, you appeal where the code grants a right of appeal, not as a matter of course.

Victim’s right to appeal (Section 413 proviso)

The notable feature here is the victim’s right to appeal under the Sec 413 proviso. The victim now has an independent right to appeal under the Section 413 proviso, against an order of acquittal, against a conviction for a lesser offence, or against inadequate compensation, without having to rely on the State to carry the appeal forward. This recognition of the victim as a participant with appellate standing, not merely a witness, is one of the more reader-relevant continuities BNSS reinforced.

Appeal from conviction and from acquittal

Beyond the victim’s right, the code maps out who appeals where. An appeal from a conviction lies under Sec 415, and the forum depends on which court convicted and how serious the sentence is. An appeal in the case of an acquittal is provided for under Sec 419, with the State (and, in defined cases, the complainant or victim) able to challenge an acquittal. Where several persons are convicted in one trial, BNSS preserves a special right of appeal so that one convict’s appeal can benefit the others in appropriate cases, under Sec 421. The practical question, which court do I appeal to, turns on the trial court and the sentence, so the answer is matter-specific.

A common question is whether an appeal is a fresh trial. It isn’t, an appeal generally re-examines the trial court’s findings on the existing record, not a re-run of the evidence (though appellate courts have powers to take additional evidence in limited situations). The pitfall is missing the limitation period: appeals have time limits, and a strong case lost to a missed deadline is the most avoidable failure in this stage.

Fair-trial guarantees that run through every stage

Underneath every section number and every deadline runs a single thread: the right to a fair trial. It isn’t a stage; it’s the standard the whole sequence has to meet. This is the layer that separates a procedural checklist from genuine criminal justice, and it’s where the constitutional guarantees live.

Fair, just and reasonable procedure

The constitutional anchor is Article 21 of the Constitution, which the Supreme Court has read to require that any procedure depriving a person of liberty be fair, just and reasonable, not arbitrary. That principle, established in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248, runs through every BNSS stage: a coerced statement, a denied document, an unheard accused, each is a fair-trial problem before it’s a procedural one. The sections are the mechanism; Article 21 is the measure.

Speedy trial as a fundamental right

The new BNSS timelines did not invent the idea of a prompt trial, they codified a right the Supreme Court recognised decades ago. The right to a speedy trial as part of the Article 21 guarantee was established in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81, which exposed how undertrials could languish longer than any sentence they faced. Seen this way, the BNSS charge-sheet, charge-framing, and judgment clocks are the legislature finally putting statutory teeth into a constitutional promise the courts made long ago.

Trial integrity and the witness stage

A fair trial also means a trial whose evidence can be trusted. Where witnesses are intimidated or the process is subverted, the trial itself fails, and the courts have held that the power to order a retrial exists to protect the integrity of the process, as recognised in Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158. This matters most at the evidence and cross-examination stage, where the contest is real and the pressure on witnesses is highest. A common question is whether default bail and these fair-trial protections can be diluted by later filings; the courts have treated certain statutory rights, like default bail, as indefeasible once they accrue, a point reinforced in Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC 616. The pitfall, for litigant and lawyer alike, is treating fair-trial guarantees as abstract, they’re enforceable, stage by stage, and they’re often the strongest argument in the room.

FAQ: stages of a criminal trial under BNSS

What are the stages of a criminal trial in India under BNSS?

A criminal trial under BNSS runs from FIR (Sec 173) through investigation, charge sheet (Sec 193), cognizance (Sec 210), supply of documents (Sec 230), framing of charge, prosecution evidence, the accused’s statement (Sec 351), defence evidence, final arguments, judgment (Sec 392), and finally appeal. The exact charge stage depends on which of the three trial tracks applies.

What is cognizance and who takes it?

Cognizance is the judicial act of a Magistrate applying their mind to an offence and deciding to proceed with it, taken under Sec 210 BNSS. It is taken of the offence, not the offender, and can be based on a police report, a complaint, or information received. Until cognizance is taken, there is no case before the court in the trial sense.

What is a Zero FIR and an e-FIR under Section 173 BNSS?

A Zero FIR can be registered at any police station regardless of where the offence occurred, then transferred to the station with jurisdiction, so a complainant is never turned away. An e-FIR allows information to be reported electronically. Both are recognised under Sec 173 BNSS and are among the clearest digital changes the new code made to the first stage.

What does “framing of charge” mean?

Framing of charge is the court formally putting the specific accusation to the accused in writing: this offence, these particulars. It happens under Sec 251 in a sessions trial and Sec 263 in a magistrate warrant case, only after the court finds a prima facie case. No charge is framed in a summons case; only the substance of the accusation is stated.

Within how many days must a charge be framed under BNSS?

BNSS introduced a 60-day deadline for framing the charge: within 60 days of the first hearing on charge in a sessions case under Sec 251(1)(b), and within 60 days of the first hearing in a magistrate warrant case under Sec 263. The CrPC had no such outer limit, so this is a genuinely new timeline.

Within how many days must judgment be pronounced under BNSS?

Under Sec 392(1) BNSS, judgment in a criminal court of original jurisdiction must be pronounced not later than 45 days after the trial ends. In a sessions trial the position is tighter: Sec 258(1) sets a default of 30 days from the completion of arguments, extendable to 45 days for reasons recorded in writing. The CrPC set no such outer limit, and whether these deadlines are mandatory or merely directory is still being worked out by the courts in 2026.

What is the charge-sheet filing deadline under BNSS (60 vs 90 days)?

The police must file the charge sheet within 60 days for offences carrying lesser punishment and within 90 days for the gravest offences (broadly, those punishable with ten years or more, life, or death). If the deadline is missed and the accused applies before the charge sheet is filed, default (statutory) bail becomes available. The exact trigger date should be confirmed for a specific matter.

What happens after the charge sheet is filed under BNSS?

After the charge sheet (police report) is filed under Sec 193, the Magistrate takes cognizance under Sec 210, the accused is supplied with the relevant documents under Sec 230, and, for sessions-triable offences, the case is committed to the Court of Session under Sec 232. Only then does the trial proper, framing of charge and evidence, begin.

Can the accused be discharged before trial, and how?

Yes. Before the charge is framed, the accused can apply for discharge: under Sec 250 in a sessions trial and Sec 262 in a magistrate warrant case. The court discharges the accused if it finds no prima facie case, no “grave suspicion” worth putting to trial. Discharge happens before trial; acquittal happens after trial. They are different stages with different standards.

What is the difference between a warrant case and a summons case?

A warrant case (broadly, offences punishable with more than two years) involves the formal framing of a charge under Sec 263. A summons case (broadly, up to two years) does not, the court only states the substance of the accusation to the accused under Sec 274. That charge-versus-no-charge distinction is the defining difference between the two magistrate tracks under BNSS.

References

Case Law

1. Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC 616, Supreme Court of India
2. Dr. Anand Rai v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2026 INSC 141, Supreme Court of India
3. Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81, AIR 1979 SC 1369
4. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248, AIR 1978 SC 597
5. State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 39, AIR 1977 SC 2018
6. Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4, AIR 1979 SC 366
7. Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158, Supreme Court of India

Statutes

1. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, referenced for section mapping
2. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, sections cited: 173, 174 to 187, 187(3), 193, 210, 230, 232, 248 to 260, 251, 258, 261 to 273, 263, 274 to 282, 289 to 300, 351, 392, 395, 401, 413, 415, 419, 421, 531
3. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, referenced for offence classification

Legal disclaimer

This article is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance on any matter, including which procedural code applies to your case, consult a qualified legal professional.