Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
The question asks for which of the listed offences an "in-camera trial" is typically conducted. An in-camera trial is a proceeding held in private, where the public and press are not allowed to observe. This is done to protect the privacy and dignity of the victim, especially in sensitive cases.
Step 2: Key Legal Provision:
Section 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) deals with the court being open to the public. However, subsection (2) of Section 327 makes specific provisions for in-camera trials for certain offences.
Step 3: Detailed Explanation:
Section 327(2) of the CrPC mandates that the inquiry into and trial of rape or an offence under Section 376, 376A, 376B, 376C, 376D or 376E of the Indian Penal Code shall be conducted in camera. The primary objective is to protect the victim from public humiliation and embarrassment, allowing her to testify without fear.
While a court has the discretion to hold any trial in-camera if it deems fit, it is mandatory for offences of rape under Section 376 IPC.
Let's analyze the options:
- (A) 302 IPC: Murder trial. Generally held in open court.
- (B) 307 IPC: Attempt to murder. Generally held in open court.
- (C) 376 IPC: Rape. Mandatorily held in-camera.
- (D) 498-A IPC: Cruelty by husband or his relatives. Not mandatorily in-camera, though the court may exercise its discretion.
Step 4: Final Answer:
In-camera trial is mandatorily conducted in cases charged under Section 376 IPC (Rape).
Having heard the learned Counsels for the parties, and on perusal of the ma terial on record, the primary issue which arises for consideration of this Court is ”whether a review or recall of an order passed in a criminal proceeding initiated under section 340 of CrPC is permissible or not?” [...] A careful consideration of the statutory provisions and the aforesaid decisions of this Court clarify the now-well settled position of jurisprudence of Section 362 of CrPC which when summarized would be that the criminal courts, as envisaged under the CrPC, are barred from altering or reviewing in their own judgments except for the exceptions which are explicitly provided by the statute, namely, correction of a clerical or an arithmetical error that might have been committed or the said power is provided under any other law for the time being in force. As the courts become functus officio the very moment a judgment or an order is signed, the bar of Section 362 CrPC becomes applicable. Despite the powers provided under Section 482 CrPC which, this veil cannot allow the courts to step beyond or circumvent an explicit bar. It also stands clarified that it is only in situations wherein an application for recall of an order or judgment seeking a procedural review that the bar would not apply and not a substantive review where the bar as contained in Section 362 CrPC is attracted. Numerous decisions of this Court have also elaborated that the bar under said provision is to be applied stricto sensu.
(Extracted with edits and revisions from Vikram Bakshi v. RP Khosla 2025 INSC 1020)