Recently, the Supreme Court while deciding an appeal concerning a serious crime involving a minor, where the appellant's conviction was challenged on the grounds of procedural lapses.
Apex Court observed that the trial court failed to provide the appellant with legal aid, violating Article 21 of the Constitution of India and Section 304 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which guarantee the right to a fair trial.
Supreme Court noted that the absence of legal counsel during crucial stages prejudiced the appellant’s defence. It directed remedial measures and issued guidelines to ensure adequate legal representation in future cases.
Brief Facts:
The case pertains to a serious crime involving a minor. On 27th May 2009, a ten-year-old girl, accompanied by her seven-year-old cousin, went to graze goats near a tubewell. The victim approached the tubewell operator, the accused for water. The victim approached the tubewell operator, the accused for water. The prosecution alleged that the accused took her inside the cabin, where the crime occurred. Her body was later found hidden in a haystack inside the cabin. The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 376, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, imposing the death penalty. On appeal, the High Court upheld the conviction but commuted the sentence to life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life. The Supreme Court hearing the current appeal, granted bail to the appellant in 2022 considering his 13 years of incarceration.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The learned senior counsel appearing for the Appellant contended that there were significant inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence, particularly in the testimonies of the victim’s father and the minor eyewitness. It was argued that the father’s statements during the examination-in-chief differed materially from the version provided by the minor eyewitness. Furthermore, during cross-examination, the father attempted to modify his testimony to align with the minor’s account raising doubts about its reliability. The counsel pointed out that the accused was not represented by a lawyer during crucial stages of the trial, including the framing of charges and the recording of the examination-in-chief of the victim’s father. This lack of legal representation compromised the fairness of the proceedings and prejudiced the appellant's defence. It was further argued that the testimony of the minor eyewitness, recorded years after the incident, could not be considered entirely reliable, as there was a possibility of tutoring. The counsel emphasised that such delayed testimony, without corroboration, could not be the sole basis for conviction.
Further, the counsel challenged the recovery evidence presented by the prosecution contending that the recovery memo lacked critical details such as the time and place of recovery and the witnesses to the recovery were not examined thereby casting doubt on its credibility. Furthermore, the absence of forensic evidence to link the bloodstains on the recovered items to the victim further undermined the reliability of the prosecution’s case. It was also argued that the incriminating evidence against the appellant was not adequately put to him during his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which significantly prejudiced his right to a fair defence. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), the counsel emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and the obligation to provide the accused a reasonable opportunity to address all incriminating circumstances. In light of these submissions, it was argued that the conviction could not be sustained.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent supported the impugned judgments, asserting their correctness. Additionally, he provided assistance on the critical issue of legal aid extended to the accused during the trial proceedings.
Observation of the Court:
The Court observed that the right to legal aid is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It highlighted the importance of this right particularly in cases where the accused is unable to afford counsel. The Court stated, “It is the trial court's duty to inform the accused of his right to obtain free legal aid, which is a right covered by Article 21 of the Constitution of India”. It reflects the significance of ensuring that every individual, regardless of their financial status, has access to legal representation. The Court referred to Sections 303 and 304 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which align with the right to legal aid, and emphasised the obligation of the Court to appoint legal aid for those unable to afford a lawyer.
The court further discussed the role of the Public Prosecutor in ensuring that the trial is fair. It observed that the Public Prosecutor must ensure that the accused has access to legal aid, particularly if the accused is unrepresented. It was noted that:
“The Public Prosecutor must assist the Trial Court in framing the questions to be put to the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC and ensure that no material circumstance against the accused is omitted”. In the case at hand, the Court noted that the accused was not adequately represented during critical stages of the trial. Despite the presence of amicus curiae, there were significant procedural lapses. For instance, the examination-in-chief of witnesses was conducted in the absence of the accused’s legal counsel, depriving the accused of the right to object to questions during the testimony. The Court remarked, “If the examination-in-chief of a prosecution witness is recorded in the absence of the advocate for the accused, a very valuable right of objecting to the questions asked in examination-in-chief is taken away”.
The court also observed the inadequacy of cross-examination, with some crucial questions not being asked by the legal aid lawyer, which could have significantly impacted the defence.
The Court then elaborated on the standards for legal representation in trials, particularly those involving serious charges such as a death sentence. It pointed out that only advocates with significant experience (at least 10 years of practice) should be considered for such cases. Moreover, senior advocates should be appointed in death sentence confirmation cases, and the counsel should be given adequate time generally not less than seven days to prepare for the trial. The court remarked, “Some reasonable time may be provided to enable the counsel to prepare the matter. There cannot be any hard-and-fast rule in that behalf”.
The decision of the Court:
The Court held that procedural lapses in the case caused significant prejudice to the appellant. It found that the trial court failed to uphold the appellant’s right to legal aid, as required by Article 21 of the Constitution of India and Section 304 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, violating the right to a fair trial. The absence of legal counsel during key proceedings further deprived the appellant of a fair trial. In response, the Court directed remedial measures and issued guidelines to ensure that future cases provide adequate legal representation for accused persons.
Case Title: Ashok v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 771 of 2024
Citation: 2024 Latest Caselaw 746
Coram: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice Augustine George Masih
Advocate for Appellant: Adv. Shoeb Alam [Sr. Adv. (Amicus Curiae)], Talha Abdul Rahman [AOR (Amicus Curiae)], Dev Sareen, M Shaz Khan, Sudhanshu Tewari, Rafid Akhter, Faizan Ahmad
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. K Parmeshwar (Sr. A.A.G), Sakshi Kakkar (AOR)
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com, Click Here
